ForumGarden

If 13, 14 or 15 year olds choose to have sex, who are we to say that they have to wait until tehy reach 16? So for example a man woudl be forbid to bed a gorgeous adn willing 15 year old just becuase some fat old politician says he can't? It's a matter of whether the person in question feels ready for it or not. I disagree with havign a set age.

Nature versus nurture.

Well, I would hope that a "man" would not have it in their brains to sleep with a young teenage girl. At that age, girls are struggling with their sense of self vs. what the pop culture tells them to be. If a "man" who she looked up to came into the picture and put advances on her, she may be willing, but only because she is trying to please him. Let me repeat that: please HIM, not herself.

Put a legal age on losing your virginity? Hard to do, and more interference from the government in our personal lives than I feel comfortable with.

Putting a "statutory rape" limit on age difference? Absolutely. If these "men" can't decifer the difference between right & wrong, then someone has to. Innocence is only had for a short time, its worth protecting. A real man of stable mind won't even give the law a second thought.



EDIT:

So there is no confusion, I feel the same about older women & boys

Nobody says you must not, Irmin. All they say is that if you do you have to be tried for it, and if found guilty by your peers you have to abide by whatever sentence is passed on you. It's entirely a matter of personal choice whether you take the one path or the other.

If you feel the law is an ass in a given circumstance you have the benefit of your peers passing judgement. If they agree with you they'll refuse to convict. A fairer system than that would be hard to design.

Irmin;669820 wrote: If 13, 14 or 15 year olds choose to have sex, who are we to say that they have to wait until tehy reach 16? So for example a man woudl be forbid to bed a gorgeous adn willing 15 year old just becuase some fat old politician says he can't? It's a matter of whether the person in question feels ready for it or not. I disagree with havign a set age.

Nature versus nurture.


Let's see...

You burst on the FG scene as a Nazi, now you're arguing in favour of paedophilia.

You're a tad socially awkward.

As for the age of consent, if we're talking about your parents, it should be 100.

hee hee hee....



that's not to say that a variance of opinion is not valued, just that its an odd way to introduce yourself to a new group.

Richard Bell;669861 wrote: Let's see...



You're a tad socially awkward.




:wah: :wah:

I'm sorry, that just cracked me up the way you put that, Richard.

RedGlitter;669877 wrote: :wah:

I'm sorry, that just cracked me up the way you put that, Richard.


:wah:I agree.

PMSL - Hello I'm Socially Awkward will you be my friend :wah::wah:

I too, disagree with an age of consent in general but again if you don't have one, then when someone molests a 2 or an 8 year old or such, you have nothing to go with. So we have to have something. What else could we do?

RedGlitter;669881 wrote: I too, disagree with an age of consent in general but again if you don't have one, then when someone molests a 2 or an 8 year old or such, you have nothing to go with. So we have to have something. What else could we do?


great point, rg

RedGlitter;669881 wrote: I too, disagree with an age of consent in general but again if you don't have one, then when someone molests a 2 or an 8 year old or such, you have nothing to go with. So we have to have something. What else could we do?


I thought the majority view in the US is that sex should be practiced only between married partners. If the majority view were taken as the basis of legislation then that would deal with the question.

spot;669885 wrote: I thought the majority view in the US is that sex should be practiced only between married partners. If the majority view were taken as the basis of legislation then that would deal with the question.


Spot, that would be a terrible thing, IMO. Where did you get your source for that? I think that might be the majority view in among the christian segment of the population, but definitely not most. I sure wouldn't want the gov't telling me as an adult, that I had to be married to have sex.

Fight the fundamentalists. There's no practical difference between a fundamentalist christian legislature and a sharia court system except I'd sooner trust the latter.

You don't happen to know what proportion of adult US residents claim to be Christian, do you?

spot;669897 wrote: Fight the fundamentalists. There's no practical difference between a fundamentalist christian legislature and a sharia court system except I'd sooner trust the latter.

You don't happen to know what proportion of adult US residents claim to be Christian, do you?


No, I sure don't. I understand christianity is the predominant faith though but I don't have a number for that either.

Gosh, I'd rather eat my hat than fight the Fundies!!! EEK!

There is a big differecne betwen a man who has sex with a teenage girl than a paedophile. A girl of 15 has plenty of womanly features, so if an older male finds her attractive, he is not necessarily a kiddie fiddler.

spot;669885 wrote: I thought the majority view in the US is that sex should be practiced only between married partners. If the majority view were taken as the basis of legislation then that would deal with the question.


only for the ultra-conservatives with thick blinders on. outside of that small group, sex is EVERYWHERE. Casual sex is glorified in pop culture... tv, radio, magazines, fashion.

When I was a virgin at the age of 14, I was a rarity. In fact, I had sex at 15 just to see what the big deal was... why people cared so much about it.

Irmin;669903 wrote: There is a big differecne betwen a man who has sex with a teenage girl than a paedophile. A girl of 15 has plenty of womanly features, so if an older male finds her attractive, he is not necessarily a kiddie fiddler.


What on earth....?:-3:-3

Irmin;669903 wrote: There is a big differecne betwen a man who has sex with a teenage girl than a paedophile. A girl of 15 has plenty of womanly features, so if an older male finds her attractive, he is not necessarily a kiddie fiddler.


When you've worked this joke to death, can we have anthropophagi next?

Besides, I doubt seriously that a marriage-consent law would ever fly...there would be riots in the streets. And I'd be leading. :wah: I think it would end up like the sodomy laws- it'd be on the books but nobody would take it seriously.

"Casual sex is glorified in pop culture... tv, radio, magazines, fashion."

I agree. Young women need to choose carefully with whom they mate and ignore the methods the Jews use to try to corrupt our women.

Irmin;669911 wrote: "Casual sex is glorified in pop culture... tv, radio, magazines, fashion."

I agree. Young women need to choose carefully with whom they mate and ignore the methods the Jews use to try to corrupt our women.


:wah:

Buddy, you're too rich for my blood! :wah:

RedGlitter;669909 wrote: Besides, I doubt seriously that a marriage-consent law would ever fly...there would be riots in the streets. And I'd be leading. :wah: I think it would end up like the sodomy laws- it'd be on the books but nobody would take it seriously.
You do accept, though, that it would be a prime objective of fundamentalist christians to get it adopted?

I don't think sex within marriage is permitted in the US below the age of 14. at the moment, but there's no age difference rule attached to that. I may be behind the times of course.

spot;669913 wrote: You do accept, though, that it would be a prime objective of fundamentalist christians to get it adopted?

I don't think sex within marriage is permitted in the US below the age of 14. at the moment, but there's no age difference rule attached to that. I may be behind the times of course.


Yes, I accept that- they would LOVE that. On the surface anyway, as there are a lot of fundy hypocrites walking around.

Worldwide AOC:

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

US only AOC:

http://www.coolnurse.com/consent.htm

RedGlitter;669919 wrote: Yes, I accept that- they would LOVE that. On the surface anyway, as there are a lot of fundy hypocrites walking around.


We've solved Irmin's problem for him though. All he needs do is become a US citizen and marry in a state which permits 14 year olds to get married. I'm glad we sorted that for him. There's probably a state that hasn't prohibited bestiality too, that'll deal with his next attempt at online social interaction here. "In all my years trying petty criminality I've never met a case so vile - how low can you get!" - "A Jack Russell's about my limit, sir".

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

:wah:

spot;669928 wrote: We've solved Irmin's problem for him though. All he needs do is become a US citizen and marry in a state which permits 14 year olds to get married. I'm glad we sorted that for him. There's probably a state that hasn't prohibited bestiality too, that'll deal with his next attempt at online social interaction here. "In all my years trying petty criminality I've never met a case so vile - how low can you get!" - "A Jack Russell's about my limit, sir".


oh, behave! The US is not that undignified... almost, but not quite

'[love wrote: light;669935']oh, behave! The US is not that undignified... almost, but not quite


Yes ma'm. I'm afraid in a moment of overexuberance I inadvertently uncovered my joie d'esprit. I shall revert to la sérénité as soon as I can recompose myself. It was not a pretty sight and I apologise for the distress it must have caused you.

Irmin;669911 wrote: "Casual sex is glorified in pop culture... tv, radio, magazines, fashion."

I agree. Young women need to choose carefully with whom they mate and ignore the methods the Jews use to try to corrupt our women.

What the hell has the Jews got to do with your rant or are you just showing your right wing credentials :rolleyes:

They killed Jesus, Fester. You're so out of touch if you never knew that. We spent the best part of a thousand years killing them in revenge. We know that we're in for some Almighty Wrath if it turns out we weren't meant to do it, so we invent elaborate blood libels to help popularise our case and spread whatever blame's going. Little Sir Hugh of Lincoln was quite a favourite for a long while.

eta: If, on the other hand, you're wondering what the OP intended, it's a game. It involves seeing how many screams of outrage one thread on any subject from any point of view can generate with the least input by the player. It becomes less satisfying if the readers don't join in by screaming.

Irmin;669820 wrote: If 13, 14 or 15 year olds choose to have sex, who are we to say that they have to wait until tehy reach 16? So for example a man woudl be forbid to bed a gorgeous adn willing 15 year old just becuase some fat old politician says he can't? It's a matter of whether the person in question feels ready for it or not. I disagree with havign a set age.

Nature versus nurture.


What if she was ugly and willing ?

spot;669941 wrote: Yes ma'm. I'm afraid in a moment of overexuberance I inadvertently uncovered my joie d'esprit. I shall revert to la sérénité as soon as I can recompose myself. It was not a pretty sight and I apologise for the distress it must have caused you.


apology accepted & in true US form, I shall recover quickly with the aid of my happy pill, xanax

what would modern society be without the aid of little pills packed with big happiness?

If you start calling me a little pill we'll rapidly fall out with each other.

spot;669978 wrote: If you start calling me a little pill we'll rapidly fall out with each other.


well, spot, i would never assume those things about any man



just jokes, darlin' :-4

spot;669953 wrote: They killed Jesus, Fester. You're so out of touch if you never knew that. We spent the best part of a thousand years killing them in revenge. We know that we're in for some Almighty wrath if it turns out we weren't meant to do it, so we invent elaborate blood libels to help popularise our case and spread whatever blame's going. Little Sir Hugh of Lincoln was quite a favourite for a long while.

eta: If, on the other hand, you're wondering what the OP intended, it's a game. It involves seeing how many screams of outrage one thread on any subject from any point of view can generate with the least input by the player. It becomes less satisfying if the readers don't join in by screaming.


The top part of your post only applies to believers , as I am not one it does not matter who killed him

Now if this is a game

I am bloody outraged That the OP is blaming the Jews for corrupting our women , would the OP care to explain

Is that how you play it

Uncle Fester;669987 wrote: Is that how you play it God no!

Damn with faint praise, a languid ripple of applause once a week and a general but evident lack of interest.

spot;669885 wrote: I thought the majority view in the US is that sex should be practiced only between married partners. If the majority view were taken as the basis of legislation then that would deal with the question.


Since when did the way the majority feels effect the way legislation proceeds ?

Is there a new movement Ive missed ?

Nomad;670020 wrote: Is there a new movement Ive missed ?


But of course, just business as usual.

I wouldn't care if sex were an intramural team spectator sport, if it weren't for the consequences.









.............















Okay, I would care. I'd join a team. Right tackle maybe, but not center or fullback. I've been accused of being a tight end as well.

Nobody... man or woman gets to compromise a youth......

The youth may not have good discrestion.........it does not matter..........the adult is always at fault

Irmin;669903 wrote: There is a big differecne betwen a man who has sex with a teenage girl than a paedophile. A girl of 15 has plenty of womanly features, so if an older male finds her attractive, he is not necessarily a kiddie fiddler.


I hope that you dont have any children, or work around children. If life is a free for all and womanly features determine maturity, than you surely must be in favor of incest also. So, if breasts and genitals are sufficently developed.... your motto seems to be Anywhere, anytime, with anyone. There are adults bbelieve it or not who #1 feel they have a moral obligation to protect the worlds young. And #2 Have developed pleasure centers of their brains that go way beyond mere sexual gratification. In your world adults would be mere predators, and we would live in a savage society. The stronger ravaging the weaker whenever the urge struck them. Your concept makes me feel physically ill.

Weeder, he's not being serious, he's only trying to provoke a reaction! He's a poser, stop clapping.

weeder;670270 wrote: I hope that you dont have any children, or work around children. If life is a free for all and womanly features determine maturity, than you surely must be in favor of incest also. So, if breasts and genitals are sufficently developed.... your motto seems to be Anywhere, anytime, with anyone. There are adults bbelieve it or not who #1 feel they have a moral obligation to protect the worlds young. And #2 Have developed pleasure centers of their brains that go way beyond mere sexual gratification. In your world adults would be mere predators, and we would live in a savage society. The stronger ravaging the weaker whenever the urge struck them. Your concept makes me feel physically ill.




now my daughter is over and is nearly 18 very beautiful and guys look at her all the time ,i think the age she be raised to at least 30 years old or until the father is dead :-3:-3 no till she is 30 or else i could be poisoned if she meets some worthless little upstart :-5 :rolleyes:sigh

jimbo;670326 wrote: now my daughter is over and is nearly 18 very beautiful and guys look at her all the time ,i think the age she be raised to at least 30 years old or until the father is dead:-3 no till she is 30 or else i could be poisoned if she meets some worthless little upstart


In other words Jimbo you would not like her to meet some one like you :wah::wah::p

Uncle Fester;670331 wrote: In other words Jimbo you would not like her to meet some one like you :wah::wah::p




my friend i would love her to meet a kind nice guy like me but with a great job and a good future ..... well i would in about 20 years :wah:

spot;670299 wrote: Weeder, he's not being serious, he's only trying to provoke a reaction! He's a poser, stop clapping.


OK Why dont I recognize kidding?

weeder;670366 wrote: OK Why dont I recognize kidding?


I've no idea. Let's practice, shall we?I'm very worried about the declining number of Great Apes on the planet. I think the numbers should increase and that they should live outdoors in surroundings close to those they enjoyed in the wild. There trouble is there's no budget provider to set aside land for this.

I think farmers should take the job on, they manage, for example, to keep alligator numbers higher than they'd be otherwise. To make Great Apes farmable though, the law has to change to allow their skins to be marketed. Great Ape leather would be a premium-priced commodity if it were legal. We could have very distinctive handbags and shoes, and the mountain gorillas would finally have a permanent home safe from poachers and deforestation.Your turn, weeder. Go for it.

I think Ive got it!!!! Ive proposed a new concept for the supermarket managers in my town. My feeling is that we should do away with the fresh fruit and produce departments. Fresh fruit increases the risk of pests and diseases entering the country. There has also been an incresed number of residents visiting the emergency rooms of local hospitals to have produce removed from their rectums. It seems that with the high number of illiterate folk living here.... incorporating fruits and vegetables in the diet to promote elimination was mis understood. The poor victims did not understand that they were supposed to EAT the stuff, not insert it.

That's the style, weeder! Yes, you're getting it.

Shall I tell you though, the angriest blackest most furious short article ever written by a livid clergyman? It almost fits what we're discussing except that Jonathan Swift wasn't looking for applause, he was out for blood and deadly serious. There's a copy at http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/modest.html and if you have a spare half hour you could read it. It's nearly 300 years old and it still brings readers to a shocked standstill when they realize how much he's holding himself in.

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

spot;670415 wrote: That's the style, weeder! Yes, you're getting it.

Shall I tell you though, the angriest blackest most furious short article ever written by a livid clergyman? It almost fits what we're discussing except that Jonathan Swift wasn't looking for applause, he was out for blood and deadly serious. There's a copy at http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/modest.html and if you have a spare half hour you could read it. It's nearly 300 years old and it still brings readers to a shocked standstill when they realize how much he's holding himself in.


I give up , I am more bloody confused than when I started , now I know I am old lips: