[quote]batman730 wrote:
Sorry, what does that have to do with the article?
[/quote]
Fuck the article.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wasn’t aware until this thread that it was “bad” for a 32 year old to have sex with an 18 year old.
It is LEGAL.
Isn’t that all that matters socially?
Anything else is a personal issue it seems.[/quote]
You are right, it is legal. It also means you like to have sex with barely not children. If you are okay with that I guess it is on you. It is predatory IMO.[/quote]
College age is not “barely not children”?
You serious with this? Most 18 year old girls I knew were doing shit most 30 years olds today would not do.[/quote]
I was talking 18 and under. Yes, 18 is barely not a child mentally no matter their level of sexual experience. Have you talked to many 18 year old girls lately?[/quote]
Dude, I know I was no idiot at that age. I don’t care what average is. [/quote]
You obviously don’t have daughters. If you are 32 and show up at my house with my teenage daughter don’t expect a warm welcome.
[/quote]
Dude, we understand “Dad-shit”.
That doesn’t mean you should make choices for THE COUNTRY based on your own daughter.[/quote]
I expect my daughter to have a healthy sex life when appropriate, and only she can decide when that is. My eldest is 15 1/2 and I know has had sex. Her boyfriend is seventeen and we sat them both down and explained that while we didn’t condone it and it was not legal, we know we cannot control her.
I’m certain I would not have had the same self control had he been 30.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Really?
What if he looked like Brad Pitt?
That is another thing that has really changed lately…older guys still getting younger chicks even easier.
Many of the top action stars lately are way past their 20’s.[/quote]
Why would I care what he looked like?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
The thing about this society though is that we live in it[/quote]
We do…which is why we know it is changing.
Yeah, in the 1950’s maybe 18 meant “pure as driven snow”
Now, it means Girls Gone Wild and water pistols being shot into places that your grandparents didn’t see until wedding night.[/quote]
I’m not remarking on change within periods. I’m remarking on the need for separation between periods. The greater the dissonance, the lesser the relevance.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Doesn’t mean they are the majority [/quote]
This is where you’re wrong. The average college girl now has several partners by the time she finishes university.
Hookup culture is rampant.
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
The thing about this society though is that we live in it[/quote]
We do…which is why we know it is changing.
Yeah, in the 1950’s maybe 18 meant “pure as driven snow”
Now, it means Girls Gone Wild and water pistols being shot into places that your grandparents didn’t see until wedding night.[/quote]
I’m not remarking on change within periods. I’m remarking on the need for separation between periods. The greater the dissonance, the lesser the relevance.[/quote]
Yeah, but it is changing rapidly…which is why we are talking about it.
Think about it, in just under 200 years, we went from getting married at 14 to thinking we needed another 4 years just to have sex.
Seriously, do you think they will hold your opinions on the issue 200 years from now?
I am thinking not.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
The thing about this society though is that we live in it[/quote]
We do…which is why we know it is changing.
Yeah, in the 1950’s maybe 18 meant “pure as driven snow”
Now, it means Girls Gone Wild and water pistols being shot into places that your grandparents didn’t see until wedding night.[/quote]
I’m not remarking on change within periods. I’m remarking on the need for separation between periods. The greater the dissonance, the lesser the relevance.[/quote]
Yeah, but it is changing rapidly…which is why we are talking about it.
Think about it, in just under 200 years, we went from getting married at 14 to thinking we needed another 4 years just to have sex.
[b]Seriously, do you think they will hold your opinions on the issue 200 years from now?
I am thinking not.[/b][/quote]
That’s an iteration of what I just said
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
For those of you who think college age women are innocent and sleeping with them is “predatory,” I’d suggest you read up on Yale SWUGs (Single Washed-up Upperyear Girl). This isn’t a Yale specific thing, only the term originated there
Basically they are girls who’ve been hooked up a ton and feel they are washed up at the tender age of 21.
[/quote]
Yeah, that article totally sells me on how positive and constructive it is for young girls to have tons of sex. I so want my daughter to be an apathetic borderline alcoholic whose spirit has been crushed by excessive partying and promiscuity and so has given up on relationships and ever finding love or even sexual gratification by the time she’s 21. That article describes a SWUG as a girl who has “been through the meat grinder”. Sounds awesome. I’m so glad our daughters have been “empowered” to do that. No one’s getting hurt at all.
[/quote]
What if…she turned 18 and met an Air Force major when he rescued her on a plane hijacking and single handedly pulled her back into the plane and saved her life…who has no kids, never been married, has a genius IQ, looks like “random good looking white guy”, has great sense of humor and your daughter freaking loves.
Let’s assume he also comes with a crystal ball or chinese fortune cookie that says he will be rich in the next 10 years and will never hurt your daughter and she will be happy for all time.
You would restrict this union based on age alone?[/quote]
You have to a create a what if father as well.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Sorry, what does that have to do with the article?
[/quote]
Fuck the article.[/quote]
I was responding to the idea of whether girls having excessive quantities of sex with excessive quantities drunken frat boys is “sexually empowering”.
You asked me if I would approve if the second coming of Christ road in on a unicorn, rescued my daughter and asked my daughter for the pleasure of her company. I don’t see the connection.
If said Air Force Major wanted to bang and my daughter cause young girls are hot, he should watch his 6 (not really, but I still wouldn’t approve).
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
For those of you who think college age women are innocent and sleeping with them is “predatory,” I’d suggest you read up on Yale SWUGs (Single Washed-up Upperyear Girl). This isn’t a Yale specific thing, only the term originated there
Basically they are girls who’ve been hooked up a ton and feel they are washed up at the tender age of 21.
[/quote]
Yeah, that article totally sells me on how positive and constructive it is for young girls to have tons of sex. I so want my daughter to be an apathetic borderline alcoholic whose spirit has been crushed by excessive partying and promiscuity and so has given up on relationships and ever finding love or even sexual gratification by the time she’s 21. That article describes a SWUG as a girl who has “been through the meat grinder”. Sounds awesome. I’m so glad our daughters have been “empowered” to do that. No one’s getting hurt at all.
[/quote]
What if…she turned 18 and met an Air Force major when he rescued her on a plane hijacking and single handedly pulled her back into the plane and saved her life…who has no kids, never been married, has a genius IQ, looks like “random good looking white guy”, has great sense of humor and your daughter freaking loves.
Let’s assume he also comes with a crystal ball or chinese fortune cookie that says he will be rich in the next 10 years and will never hurt your daughter and she will be happy for all time.
You would restrict this union based on age alone?[/quote]
You have to a create a what if father as well.
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter, according to the description the AF Major is a closeted gay.
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
The thing about this society though is that we live in it[/quote]
We do…which is why we know it is changing.
Yeah, in the 1950’s maybe 18 meant “pure as driven snow”
Now, it means Girls Gone Wild and water pistols being shot into places that your grandparents didn’t see until wedding night.[/quote]
I’m not remarking on change within periods. I’m remarking on the need for separation between periods. The greater the dissonance, the lesser the relevance.[/quote]
Yeah, but it is changing rapidly…which is why we are talking about it.
Think about it, in just under 200 years, we went from getting married at 14 to thinking we needed another 4 years just to have sex.
[b]Seriously, do you think they will hold your opinions on the issue 200 years from now?
I am thinking not.[/b][/quote]
That’s an iteration of what I just said[/quote]
Getting married at 14 was a necessity since the life expectancy was very low and education was sparse.
Now children can stay on their parents insurance til they are 26. I just don’t think children at 14 have the mindset to think about being independent and providing for themselves. Let alone getting married, having sex, and having children. I know that having sex does not mean having children.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
The thing about this society though is that we live in it[/quote]
We do…which is why we know it is changing.
Yeah, in the 1950’s maybe 18 meant “pure as driven snow”
Now, it means Girls Gone Wild and water pistols being shot into places that your grandparents didn’t see until wedding night.[/quote]
I’m not remarking on change within periods. I’m remarking on the need for separation between periods. The greater the dissonance, the lesser the relevance.[/quote]
Yeah, but it is changing rapidly…which is why we are talking about it.
Think about it, in just under 200 years, we went from getting married at 14 to thinking we needed another 4 years just to have sex.
[b]Seriously, do you think they will hold your opinions on the issue 200 years from now?
I am thinking not.[/b][/quote]
That’s an iteration of what I just said[/quote]
Getting married at 14 was a necessity since the life expectancy was very low and education was sparse.
Now children can stay on their parents insurance til they are 26. I just don’t think children at 14 have the mindset to think about being independent and providing for themselves. Let alone getting married, having sex, and having children. I know that having sex does not mean having children.
[/quote]
Why are you telling that to me? lol
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
For those of you who think college age women are innocent and sleeping with them is “predatory,” I’d suggest you read up on Yale SWUGs (Single Washed-up Upperyear Girl). This isn’t a Yale specific thing, only the term originated there
Basically they are girls who’ve been hooked up a ton and feel they are washed up at the tender age of 21.
[/quote]
Yeah, that article totally sells me on how positive and constructive it is for young girls to have tons of sex. I so want my daughter to be an apathetic borderline alcoholic whose spirit has been crushed by excessive partying and promiscuity and so has given up on relationships and ever finding love or even sexual gratification by the time she’s 21. That article describes a SWUG as a girl who has “been through the meat grinder”. Sounds awesome. I’m so glad our daughters have been “empowered” to do that. No one’s getting hurt at all.
[/quote]
What if…she turned 18 and met an Air Force major when he rescued her on a plane hijacking and single handedly pulled her back into the plane and saved her life…who has no kids, never been married, has a genius IQ, looks like “random good looking white guy”, has great sense of humor and your daughter freaking loves.
Let’s assume he also comes with a crystal ball or chinese fortune cookie that says he will be rich in the next 10 years and will never hurt your daughter and she will be happy for all time.
You would restrict this union based on age alone?[/quote]
You have to a create a what if father as well.
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter, according to the description the AF Major is a closeted gay.
[/quote]
So this is pretty much a Rimley scenario
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
The thing about this society though is that we live in it[/quote]
We do…which is why we know it is changing.
Yeah, in the 1950’s maybe 18 meant “pure as driven snow”
Now, it means Girls Gone Wild and water pistols being shot into places that your grandparents didn’t see until wedding night.[/quote]
I’m not remarking on change within periods. I’m remarking on the need for separation between periods. The greater the dissonance, the lesser the relevance.[/quote]
Yeah, but it is changing rapidly…which is why we are talking about it.
Think about it, in just under 200 years, we went from getting married at 14 to thinking we needed another 4 years just to have sex.
[b]Seriously, do you think they will hold your opinions on the issue 200 years from now?
I am thinking not.[/b][/quote]
That’s an iteration of what I just said[/quote]
Getting married at 14 was a necessity since the life expectancy was very low and education was sparse.
Now children can stay on their parents insurance til they are 26. I just don’t think children at 14 have the mindset to think about being independent and providing for themselves. Let alone getting married, having sex, and having children. I know that having sex does not mean having children.
[/quote]
Why are you telling that to me? lol[/quote]
It was more towards PX. I just wanted to include your quote also. lol.
Serious question that is almost on topic, but not really. Anyone else see the new Star Trek movie and the scene where Kirk wakes up from a threesome with 2 humanoid alien chicks? What if those chicks were only 3 years old but that race fully developed sexually at that point? Is banging an alien who is still humanoid any different than interacial sex?
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
Look guys, we should get this thread back on track.
Can’t we all just agree that the OP shouldn’t be having sex with any female of any age?[/quote]
If his statements in this thread and others are 100% serious… then yes, I agree completely.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Serious question that is almost on topic, but not really. Anyone else see the new Star Trek movie and the scene where Kirk wakes up from a threesome with 2 humanoid alien chicks? What if those chicks were only 3 years old but that race fully developed sexually at that point? Is banging an alien who is still humanoid any different than interacial sex?
[/quote]
Maybe their vagina was in their foot, or maybe they did not have a vagina. Would that make you have a foot fetish?
There is nothing wrong with interracial sex. Interspecies? At this point in time that is beastiality and that if frowned upon. Outerspace Aliens? If you can procreate and start a new species why not.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Serious question that is almost on topic, but not really. Anyone else see the new Star Trek movie and the scene where Kirk wakes up from a threesome with 2 humanoid alien chicks? What if those chicks were only 3 years old but that race fully developed sexually at that point? Is banging an alien who is still humanoid any different than interacial sex?
[/quote]
Maybe their vagina was in their foot, or maybe they did not have a vagina. Would that make you have a foot fetish?
There is nothing wrong with interracial sex. Interspecies? At this point in time that is beastiality and that if frowned upon. Outerspace Aliens? If you can procreate and start a new species why not.
[/quote]
The last thing you wrote is interesting. Wouldn’t that technically make you a god?
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
What you showed is that some 18 year old girls are not mature enough to make wise choices.[/quote]
If the lamenting of life choices is the standard; the percentage of people mature enough to make their own decisions is very small.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Serious question that is almost on topic, but not really. Anyone else see the new Star Trek movie and the scene where Kirk wakes up from a threesome with 2 humanoid alien chicks? What if those chicks were only 3 years old but that race fully developed sexually at that point? Is banging an alien who is still humanoid any different than interacial sex?
[/quote]
Maybe their vagina was in their foot, or maybe they did not have a vagina. Would that make you have a foot fetish?
There is nothing wrong with interracial sex. Interspecies? At this point in time that is beastiality and that if frowned upon. Outerspace Aliens? If you can procreate and start a new species why not.
[/quote]
The last thing you wrote is interesting. Wouldn’t that technically make you a god? [/quote]
Is there any better life goal than interspecies alien god?