Alright you mother fuckers, lets have this Age Of Consent thing out...
#21
(10-28-2018, 07:34 PM)HGH Wrote: I think part of your brain never evolved if you lay down with a child. Even if it's a 50 year old man with a 20 year old, something is off, but it's 2 adults. Sex with a teenager is animalistic. There's is nothing about it that is non-predatory, regardless of how she may feel about it. It doesn't matter that her body is physically "ready" for sex. It is way deeper that that alone and you're a sick fuck if you pass up alllllll the options in front of you to go stick your dick in something that uses Snapchat and buys ring pops.

1) So now you're defining the word "child" as a 20 year old? Come the fuck on.

2) All of this is wonderful emotional rhetoric. And it's shared by the system. The same system that implemented segregation because integration was "an abomination". The same system that banned homosexuality because it was "an abomination". You sound just like them.

You present accusations of "animalistic" sex, but you provide no scienfiic evidence that a person who fucks a high school girl is less evolved. There's no information in your post, just the kind of misleading rhetorical spew that politicians use.

Where's the logic? Where's the reason?  Where's the science in your argument?
White Girl Connoisseur
[Image: OxvA.gif]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Shotgun Styles's post:
  • whiteisright4bbc
Reply
#22
Jefe, it does suck when a man goes to jail for breaking the law, but it is the law. And the same as speeding, robbing a bank, killing someone, you have to make a choice as to whether the benefit you derive from breaking the law is worth the penalty if you are caught. I agree too that it takes the choice away from those 14 yr olds who do have the maturity and life experience to make a informed decision but you would agree wouldn't you, that those young ladies are in the minority??

Reply
#23
I agree it's arbitrary but virtually every rule pertaining to age is. 

I drank at 16 and I drank at 21 and the only real difference was I didn't need a fake ID anymore. 

Some 30 year olds won't be ready for sex and some 15 year olds are. 

But the simple answer is a society needs arbitrary rules as deciding each and every case upon its merits and each individual for every permutation would be impossible.

Besides I'll just flip the question on you. What's wrong with 13? Or 12, as age of consent? When is young too young and why? Are you just picking 14 because Europe is ok with it? Europe has been ok with Fascism from time to time as well so I'm not just jumping on their dick because they were nice to black GI's in the forties...
Reply
#24
(10-28-2018, 08:16 PM)Coffin Wrote: Jefe, it does suck when a man goes to jail for breaking the law, but it is the law.  And the same as speeding, robbing a bank, killing someone, you have to make a choice as to whether the benefit you derive from breaking the law is worth the penalty if you are caught.   I agree too that it takes the choice away from those 14 yr olds who do have the maturity and life experience to make a informed decision but you would agree wouldn't you, that those young ladies are in the minority??

Of all the arguments out there, the "it's the law" is the worst one.

Segregation was the law.

Prohibition was the law.

Homosexual bans were the law.

Slavery was the law.

There are, and have been, many unjust laws. Simply saying "it's the law" isn't really taking a position. It's a cop out. 

Here's the problem: European girls are very mature compared to American girls. This is in large part because they're given responsibility for themselves at a younger age. We live in the age of the Helicopter Parent. Kids have no freedom, so they learn nothing about the world. So yes, you have a lot of immature girls. But you have such immaturity because of laws like this one that tell young females that on the one hand they aren't responsible for their decisions, but on the other hand they don't have the freedom to take responsibility if they want it.

And again: compare the teen outcomes in Germany to the US. Higher test scores, less drug use, less teen pregnancy, higher graduation rates. Age of consent 14. So the idea that you need these laws to "protect" girls is bullshit on it's face when you compare outcomes.
White Girl Connoisseur
[Image: OxvA.gif]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Shotgun Styles's post:
  • whiteisright4bbc
Reply
#25
(10-28-2018, 07:43 PM)Shotgun Styles Wrote:
(10-28-2018, 07:34 PM)HGH Wrote: I think part of your brain never evolved if you lay down with a child. Even if it's a 50 year old man with a 20 year old, something is off, but it's 2 adults. Sex with a teenager is animalistic. There's is nothing about it that is non-predatory, regardless of how she may feel about it. It doesn't matter that her body is physically "ready" for sex. It is way deeper that that alone and you're a sick fuck if you pass up alllllll the options in front of you to go stick your dick in something that uses Snapchat and buys ring pops.

1) So now you're defining the word "child" as a 20 year old? Come the fuck on.

2) All of this is wonderful emotional rhetoric. And it's shared by the system. The same system that implemented segregation because integration was "an abomination". The same system that banned homosexuality because it was "an abomination". You sound just like them.

You present accusations of "animalistic" sex, but you provide no scienfiic evidence that a person who fucks a high school girl is less evolved. There's no information in your post, just the kind of misleading rhetorical spew that politicians use.

Where's the logic? Where's the reason?  Where's the science in your argument?

I don't even know what you're talking about with #1. Re-read it. And what science do you need? It's my opinion. The same opinion many other people share. There is no correlation with political rhetoric. It's just my perspective. You're obligated to your own. But it seems you're searching really hard for hard factual "evidence" of why fucking a child is wrong, for whatever reason that may be. The point is, like I said, it is my opinion that it's sick. It's a little unnerving that I even would have to explain why. imperious makes a good point above. What age is too young then? What makes it ok to begin with? Because she has a working vagina?
Reply
#26
(10-28-2018, 08:47 PM)imperiusrex Wrote: Besides I'll just flip the question on you. What's wrong with 13? Or 12, as age of consent? When is young too young and why? Are you just picking 14 because Europe is ok with it? Europe has been ok with Fascism from time to time as well so I'm not just jumping on their dick because they were nice to black GI's in the forties...

This goes back to the science part of the discussion. One of the reasons that the ever efficient Germans chose that number is that it's the age when it is most physically safe for people to start having sex. You could do serious damage to someone younger than that. While not every girl is sexually mature enough for intercourse at that age, the vast majority are. I don't buy Crocious' number that 25% of 14 year olds have not had a period. The average age in the US for menarch is closer to 12.

I don't want to see anyone harmed. I am not advocating that girls do things that will damage their health. But I simply disagree that there's any PROOF that sex harms teenagers. I'm still waiting for someone to post those facts. Because when you look at the European model, their outcomes are superior to ours in nearly every category.

(10-28-2018, 09:10 PM)HGH Wrote: I don't even know what you're talking about with #1. Re-read it. And what science do you need? It's my opinion. The same opinion many other people share. There is no correlation with political rhetoric. It's just my perspective. You're obligated to your own. But it seems you're searching really hard for hard factual "evidence" of why fucking a child is wrong, for whatever reason that may be. The point is, like I said, it is my opinion that it's sick. It's a little unnerving that I even would have to explain why. imperious makes a good point above. What age is too young then? What makes it ok to begin with? Because she has a working vagina?

Wrong. I'm separating the fact from the bullshit. I'm not asking for "opinions". Go read the OP. I want SCIENTIFIC REASONS. Not your bullshit intuition.

For example: your definition of "child' is pretty arbitrary. In fact, 18 being the age of majority is arbitrary. Somebody just made that shit up, there's nothing scientific about it.

You can hold the silly ass opinion that teen sex is "sick", just like most Trumpers hold the opinion that Blacks are dangerous creatures who are prone to crime. Just because you believe that bullshit don't make it true. Which brings us back to the point of this thread: SEPARATING FACT FROM BULLSHIT. So far you're short on the former and shoveling a lot of the latter.
White Girl Connoisseur
[Image: OxvA.gif]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Shotgun Styles's post:
  • whiteisright4bbc
Reply
#27
Ok. I'll address two points then go to bed.

I do think the argument that having the freedom to have sex at an earlier age is part of the reason that some Europeans are better at school, etc is a false one. There are so many other factors including their education model, school structure and approach to learning that are simply so much better than the US that you can't compare the two and assign this one factor, the sexual freedom and responsibility for their bodies as the overarching reason they perform better. Many charter school kids do much better than average Americans in public school and they are under the same laws here.

And your desire for a scientific study is here in Psychology Today. Doesn't say early sex is bad, but some kids aren't ready for it yet and if they are susceptible to other issues i.e. drug abuse, depression, etc. they can all be exacerbated to some degree.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...having-sex
Reply
#28
Well seems you're a pretty angry person who doesn't accept anyone having a perspective different from your own. You can't even respond to someone else's opinion without attacking and going on the offensive. Everything is bullshit if you disagree. You're not correct just because it's your opinion. So if you want to go fuck a child, go for it. Not my case to catch.
Reply
#29
(10-28-2018, 07:19 PM)Shotgun Styles Wrote:
(10-28-2018, 06:22 PM)un57 Wrote: In my opinion, the real problem with such an age gap (14 & 40) is that it presents an inherent power imbalance favoring the adult. Adults already have considerably more rights and power in society than minors, and for good reason: minors aren't considered old enough to always exercise good judgment in certain scenarios. Sex itself is essentially a power dynamic between two individuals, so when you combine that with the power and authority an adult wields over a minor, I think the potential for abuse is very real (I don't just mean abuse of a sexual nature). In spirit, I have nothing against two consenting individuals doing whatever feels good to them, but in practice I don't think most 14 year olds are in a position to fully understand the ramifications of of such choices.

The problem with the "imbalance" argument is that most relationships have a power embalance.

By this argument, cops shouldn't be able to have sex with civilians, rich people shouldn't fuck poor people, and strong people shouldn't fuck weak people. And it doesn't work, because then NOBODY would have sex.

Beyond that, it largely focuses on people in authority. But if a teenager has sex with some guy they met at a party, he has no power over her because of his age. He's got no authority over her because he's not a parent, guardian, peace officer or educator. In that situation, where does the "power imbalance" occur?

(10-28-2018, 06:37 PM)crocious Wrote: What the hell prompted this nonsense?

Your scientific stipulation is a red herring. Physically there is no reason why someone can't have sex once they hit puberty, but sex is not just a physical act, it is an emotional one too as well as many other dynamics that are in play. 


  1. 25-30% of girls have not even had their first period by age 14
  2. The majority of 14 year olds out there are not experienced or emotionally mature enough in life to maintain a sexual relationship with a 40 year old. If you are going to counter that it is just sex, then you have clearly lost all perspective on this which it appears that you already have given how hard you are advocating for this
  3. The brain is not even fully developed at that age and they are more susceptible to a lack of impulse control, manipulation or emotional damage
  4. It is an open license for predators 
  5. The power dynamics are too skewed as the 40 year old will have all of the power and if they don't then the 40 year old needs to stop chasing teens and get their act together. While some level of imbalance is fine, that much is just unhealthy
  6. The majority of teens who would think it is gross to have some 40 year old pawing all over them

[Image: ERtdOe.png]

Lastly most of the consent laws focus on the notion that teenagers are going to be having sex with each other an are in place so we don't needlessly send young adults to jail since teenagers are going to have sex laws be damned. They are not there for some old man wanting to use it as justification to get it on with young girls because he wants young pussy.

What you are advocating for is purely selfish. It is one thing to have two people who are going through roughly the same phase in life to figure out things, but a completely different thing to have someone who is considerably more mature come in and dictate how things are going to be which is what will happen when a 40 year old and 14 year old get together. The emotional carnage that would ensure from that kind of imbalance being made acceptable would be disastrous to society.

I was hoping you'd get in on this. I know you're not going to just say some stupid emotional bullshit, but try to attack it with some facts. And for that, I appreciate your response.

Now let me explain why you're just wrong.

1) As an SJW, you take the position that females are perpetual victims. That they can't make decisions for themselves and therefor must be protected at all times. Which is odd, given how much "respect" SJWs insist females get. So you're already coming at it from the "females are victims/men are predators" baseline. I may have bias, but so do you.

2) I've already addressed the power dynamic issue. It's bogus because power imbalances are common in sexual relationships and the amount of power someone without institutional authority has over a minor is quite limited.

3) Girls have the right to think older dudes are gross. But this is the point: the decision about what to do with their bodies should be their own. Not the State. The state has no right to make this decision for them, and moreover even less right to punish SOMEONE ELSE for that girls decision. The 14th Amendment specifically forbades Statutory Rape laws, but our corrupt Supreme Court has yet to issue a precedent enforcing it.

4) What I am advocating for is the right of female human beings to choose for themselves. These girls will grow into women believing that their sexuality does not belong to them. That it belongs to the state and by virtue of that, society. They will be bullied their entire lives for any sexual decision (such as making porn or having multiple partners) that does not fit into the bullshit norms YOU have arbitrarily assigned to them. And it starts with these laws. With the  idea that they have no control over their own bodies.

Of course you want to make it about me, because that's the easy way out. You, for all your SJW pontificating, want to trap female humans in a cycle of judgement and shame. One that will last their ENTIRE LIVES. I am advocating for females to have sexual choice. You would enslave, where I would liberate.


Actually if you reread my post I intentionally made a point to be gender neutral throughout most of it as I don't think 40 year old women should be getting it on with 14 year old boys either. You were so eager to throw down the "victimization" card that you paid no attention to what I actually said rendering most of your counter empty rhetoric.

You don't see it in this forum as this place is mostly about B/G sex from a male perspective, but often when an article appears about a female teacher who had sex with a student I go off on how they typically receive lighter sentences than men who do the same thing and argue that it is not healthy for the boys they have sex with either. Sure there are boys who will brag and wear it like a badge of honor, but there are many who had the choice taken away from them are traumatized by the experience as well.

The problem with your freewill argument is that most teenagers still need guidance at that age and are not mature enough to exercise the freedoms that make the realities of having a sexual relationship with someone 30 years their senior a good idea. Many of them have not even fully discovered their own bodies and emotional boundaries yet.    Like it or not teenagers need guidance and having some adult enter into the mix on a sexual level who is primarily concerned with getting their own needs filled regardless of the costs to the teenager in most cases is not going to result in a good outcome for teenagers.

I also pointed out that yes, there are imbalances in relationships and at times they can even be healthy and help people develop a better understanding of themselves, but you are completely wrong in saying that there is a cap on the imbalance just because they don't have institutional authority. One of the many rights of being a teenager is to defy ones parents. If anything the outside stranger can exert more influence than the parents especially if the teenager is going through a rebellious phase.

The idea that one person in the relationship makes all the money, has all of the experience and can quite literally intimidate away any hesitation the teenager may have with the added bonus of hyper emotions in teenagers while their bodies are still transitioning to adulthood is too much of an imbalance. In many instances they have not experienced enough in life to understand when they are being abused or exploited. There are many adults who struggle with that as well, but the numbers would skyrocket if it became acceptable for adults to be involved with teenagers. A teenager who may be having sex for the first time or is till relatively new at it is going to be completely overwhelmed by someone who has had years of experience at manipulating people.

You completely disregard the fact that the teenager is more likely to make their whole world about the older individual and that when it ends, they are the ones more likely to be devastated by the termination of it. That is not just a statement of opinion on my part, it has been scientifically proven that the brain goes through different stages of development and that the teenage years represent the final stages prior to the brain reaching full maturity as shown in the picture that I posted. In general teenagers are more likely to influenced based on how something feels in the moment as opposed to whether it is actually good for them in the long term.  To argue that introducing an adult into the mix on a sexual level completely ignores that science.

I am making it about you, because you are the one expressing a desire to make it legal to have sex with teenage girls who aren't even women yet which on the surface appears to being fueled by some resentment of the notion that you can't. Part of being an adult is protecting children. The reason why you have gotten jaw wide open, emotional reactions to your pronouncement is that most adults, especially parents understand how disastrous normalizing the idea of grown adults having sex with teenagers would do far more harm than good. Fortunately  this movement you are advocating for will never gain any traction because most people understand how disastrous the consequences would be.
Reply
#30
I have a bit of a different take on this. I have no evidence as to if sex is harmful to teenagers. But here's the reason why I think 18 being considered legal age makes sense. We're responsible for our kids till 18 before they leave home. And the mental image of an older man taking advantage of your daughter is something most people cannot live with. It horrifies them and it's the parents making the laws in the country. Ask any parent and they'd make any sex under 18 illegal if they could. The reason they don't is because the parents have young sons too and don't want them being prosecuted.

Now, why does crossing 18 make the parents any less mad? It doesn't, but I guess the fact that your kid's off to college and no longer living with you makes it a little easier. And you have to give up your kid some time and it may as well be 18.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)