Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: joywind on June 07, 2013, 07:58 am
-
I liked ''To Catch a Predator'' because it was an unintentional indictment of America. Hansen is this normal white Christian guy, and the chomos he'd expose were mostly Jews, immigrant weirdos, wealthy shitlibs, self-styled negro lotharios, and some token typical lumpenproles. In other words, chomo demographics basically look like a DNC convention.
-
The majority of people arrested on that show wouldn't have broken any laws in a huge part of the world. So it does do a good job of casting America as a religious police state, which it is. To Catch a Predator decoys are usually 13-15 years old.
Albania - 14
Austria - 14
Argentina - 15
Bahrain - 15
Brazil - 14
Bulgaria - 14
Burkina Faso - 13
Burma - 14
Bolivia - 14
Bosnia - 14
Colombia - 12
Croatia - 14
Chad - 14
Chile - 14
China - 14
Cote d'Ivoire - 15
Costa Rica - 15
Czech Republic - 15
Denmark - 15
Estonia - 14
Ecuador - 14
French Guiana - 15
Greenland - 15
Guadeloupe - 15
Georgia - 14
Germany - 14
Greece - 15
Guatemala - 14
Guinea - 15
Honduras - 15
Hungary - 14
Iceland - 14
Italy - 14
Japan - 13
Lesotho - 14
Liechtenstein - 14
Mexico - 12 in some areas
Mauritius - 15
Moldova - 14
Monaco - 15
Montenegro - 14
Niger - 13
Nigeria - 13
Paraquay - 14
Peru - 14
Puerto Rico - 14
Romania - 15
Senegal - 13
Serbia - 14
South Korea - 13
Saint Kitts and Nevis - 14
Slovakia - 15
Slovenia - 15
Spain - 13
Sweden - 15
Swaziland - 14
Syria - 13
-
I think the way Hansen regards himself just makes it funny.
-
Perverted Justice got their asses sued hard over that show.
-
'To Catch a Predator' had entertainment value but it's easy to play the devil's advocate on this one. If the honeypot victims were supposedly 8 or 10, for example, you could make a better case for the men being "predators" and they would be actual pedophiles, too. Often the victims were 13-15, which is post pubescent (definitely not pedophilia) and over the age of consent in many civilized countries. There's a lot of men who are sexually and psychologically within the bounds of normalcy who'd fuck an attractive, very receptive 15 year old. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes and the only argument against it being consensual and mutually desired is legalistic (the law says they couldn't give consent, but they did give consent and would correctly be assessed as looking for a male to fuck within the hour). If it were legal and a good opportunity presented itself, I would have sex with the right 15 year old girl and so would most men who are open to having sex with a female they don't already know. It's not what comes to mind when I think of predatory behavior and it's not sexually deviant.
I have rather typical, socially acceptable tastes in the opposite sex and zero attraction to the kiddies.
My point is that the show demonized and ruined the lives of men who weren't fundamentally unlike much of the male audience who shook their heads and smirked at the perverted freaks, who may have been nothing of the kind. I do not doubt that the program attracted dangerous, aggressive rapists, too, but everyone was painted with the same brush. If there's anyone out there who says he isn't attracted to anyone underage and wouldn't under any circumstances consider having such a person as a sexual partner, regardless of legality, he's a common liar.
'To Catch a Predator' was all about pathologizing normal, healthy male sexuality because the state determined that in some instances, it is punishable to act upon it. However, the law cannot make men into perverts. It could theoretically outlaw all sexual activity, but by doing so, it would not be true that everyone is deviant but the celibate. As if they're not getting punished enough by the authorities, they get exposed on national TV as well. This show is not the sort of thing we should be cheering on. It's at best misleading and unfair, at worst it is a malicious attack on men in general. The media has a strange fascination with portraying male sexuality as threatening and warning everyone that it can explode into violence if men are not watched over carefully. Content with this underlying theme is a negative influence that erodes trust between people unnecessarily, sows disharmony between the sexes, and warps the minds of the young (one can construct a realistic picture of how it could even increase occurrences of frustrated outbursts of male violence like mass murders, for example).
-
God, I wanna watch a show called "Underage Predator" where 14-17 try and fuck adults. 8)
-
God, I wanna watch a show called "Underage Predator" where 14-17 try and fuck adults. 8)
I bet it would get better ratings than to catch a predator did.
-
One day I'll see a thread remotely related to underage sex or pedophilia without kmfkewm posting in it, but not today.
-
One day I'll see a thread remotely related to underage sex or pedophilia without kmfkewm posting in it, but not today.
I mean, I have never started a thread related to 'underage' (whatever that age happens to be where you live) sex or pedophilia, but if people want to talk about it I might as well educate them so they don't sound like brainwashed retarded liars, right?
-
One day I'll see a thread remotely related to underage sex or pedophilia without kmfkewm posting in it, but not today.
I mean, I have never started a thread related to 'underage' (whatever that age happens to be where you live) sex or pedophilia, but if people want to talk about it I might as well educate them so they don't sound like brainwashed retarded liars, right?
Sorry, I don't speak fluent pedophile.
-
One day I'll see a thread remotely related to underage sex or pedophilia without kmfkewm posting in it, but not today.
I mean, I have never started a thread related to 'underage' (whatever that age happens to be where you live) sex or pedophilia, but if people want to talk about it I might as well educate them so they don't sound like brainwashed retarded liars, right?
Sorry, I don't speak fluent pedophile.
Sorry let me rephrase it in a way you might have a chance of comprehending
Durrrhhhhhhhhhhhhh I ain't never done started no thread on these here internets bout no gat dam sick fucks who THINK ABOUT THE CHILLRUNS wrong, durrrrrr but cuz some other folk done did it and they done did it wrong I reckon I oughts ta edumacate em bout wut they says wrong cuz ain't a lotta it right cuz they ain't sharper than no tacks and they been listen to too many o them tee-vee talkin heads n it done gots em believin in all sorts o witchcrafts n black magics n voodoos n gots em tellin tall tales like they ain't wanna fuck them teenagers, no sireeeee, n such n such
-
My point is that the show demonized and ruined the lives of men who weren't fundamentally unlike much of the male audience who shook their heads and smirked at the perverted freaks, who may have been nothing of the kind. I do not doubt that the program attracted dangerous, aggressive rapists, too, but everyone was painted with the same brush. If there's anyone out there who says he isn't attracted to anyone underage and wouldn't under any circumstances consider having such a person as a sexual partner, regardless of legality, he's a common liar.
'To Catch a Predator' was all about pathologizing normal, healthy male sexuality because the state determined that in some instances, it is punishable to act upon it. However, the law cannot make men into perverts. It could theoretically outlaw all sexual activity, but by doing so, it would not be true that everyone is deviant but the celibate. As if they're not getting punished enough by the authorities, they get exposed on national TV as well. This show is not the sort of thing we should be cheering on. It's at best misleading and unfair, at worst it is a malicious attack on men in general. The media has a strange fascination with portraying male sexuality as threatening and warning everyone that it can explode into violence if men are not watched over carefully. Content with this underlying theme is a negative influence that erodes trust between people unnecessarily, sows disharmony between the sexes, and warps the minds of the young (one can construct a realistic picture of how it could even increase occurrences of frustrated outbursts of male violence like mass murders, for example).
Almost as if sex is being portrayed as a "duty to the Party". ...everyone on this forum should read 1984 if they haven't done so already.
Sorry let me rephrase it in a way you might have a chance of comprehending
Durrrhhhhhhhhhhhhh I ain't never done started no thread on these here internets bout no gat dam sick fucks who THINK ABOUT THE CHILLRUNS wrong, durrrrrr but cuz some other folk done did it and they done did it wrong I reckon I oughts ta edumacate em bout wut they says wrong cuz ain't a lotta it right cuz they ain't sharper than no tacks and they been listen to too many o them tee-vee talkin heads n it done gots em believin in all sorts o witchcrafts n black magics n voodoos n gots em tellin tall tales like they ain't wanna fuck them teenagers, no sireeeee, n such n such
LOL. +1
-
I believe the next sexual revolution is that of the ephebophiles.
In which I will gladly take part....
Onward! To Mexico! ;D
(Don't worry, folks. It would be a crime upon the dainty young girlies of planet earth if I DID NOT show them care an affection.)
-
The simple undeniable fact of the matter is that people reach peak sexual maturity, on average, sometime around their 14th year of life. Men who say they are not attracted to people 14-17 years old are saying that they are not attracted to fully sexually matured people, leading me to conclude that they must be pedophiles or asexuals.
1. Men are attracted to potential sexual partners primarily based on physical appearance, primarily signs of fertility and sexual maturity
2. Men are typically attracted to signs of youth, as these are biological signals of fertility
3. People reach full sexual maturity (and females reach peak fertility), and appear to be sexually mature, on average, sometime around 14 years old
4. People who are 14 years old display many physical signs of youth, as they are young
All of these facts can be backed up with hundreds of different citations, and the only conclusion we can form when taking these facts together is that neurotypical males are sexually attracted to underage teenagers.
If most men are attracted to sexual partners based primarily on their physical appearance of sexual maturity and signs of fertility, and most people reach peak fertility and appear to be fully sexually mature when they are 14, then most men are attracted to 14 year olds.
If the majority of A's are attracted to B's that are also C's, and the majority of D's are B's that are also C's, then the majority of A's are attracted to the majority of D's.
If the majority of A's are attracted to B's that are also C's, and some D's are B's that are also C's, then the majority of A's are attracted to some D's.
If the majority of A's are attracted to B's that are also C's, and all D's are B's but no D's are C's, then the majority of A's are not attracted to any D's.
It is simple and obvious logic. And when we plug the variables with A = men, B's = people who appear youthful and C's = people who appear sexually mature, then you can see that plugging '14-17 year olds' for D reveals that most men are attracted to most people who are 14-17, plugging 'post pubescents that are not 14' for D reveals that most men are attracted to some people who are pubescent but not 14, and plugging 'pre pubescent' for D reveals that most men are not attracted to pre pubescent.
The only way anybody can disprove what I have said is if they can prove one of the following
1. Men are NOT primarily attracted to potential sexual partners based on physical appearance indicating fertility and sexual maturity
2. Men are NOT attracted to signs of youth
3. People do NOT reach full sexual maturity, on average, around 14 years of age
4. People who are below the age of 18 do NOT display many signs of youth
5. No people who are below the age of 14 have reached full sexual maturity
6. Some people who are pre pubescent have reached full sexual maturity
So I suggest anybody wanting to argue with me runs off and finds a citation proving one of these points, because failure to do so essentially ensures that you will be arguing from an incorrect position.
-
Waiting for the oversocialized, leftist, human-hating, turd swallowers of this forum to disprove that logic.
-
Men are attracted to young women and shit
Yeah, but my brain overcomes my libido. A very young woman, whilst she may well have a cracking pair of tits and be really really pretty, is still barely out of childhood. I would leave her alone, I really would.
-
Morality trumps libido.
-
Morality trumps libido.
Your notion of morality in this case is an arbitrary and artificial construct that you have been conditioned into believing. Other than the past one hundred years or so, for all of human history it has been legal to engage in sexual intercourse with those who are not prepubescent. In much of the world it is still legal to engage in sexual interaction with those who are 13+ or 14+. We have been evolutionarily programmed to find 14-17 year olds sexually attractive, with the exception of the past one hundred or so years it has always been considered morally acceptable to have sexual relations with 14-17 year olds, and in the majority of the world it is legal to have sexual relationships with at least some segment of the people who fall between the ages of 14-17. Indeed, in several parts of the world it is legal to have sexual relationships with people who are below the age of 14.
Only a tiny fraction of the men arrested on To Catch A Predator would have broken any laws if they lived in Spain, even living in Eastern Europe or much of Western Europe would have spared many of the men. In some parts of the USA men are labeled as sexual predators for engaging in behavior that is legal in other parts of the USA!
-
Your notion of morality in this case is an arbitrary and artificial construct that you have been conditioned into believing.
You have no idea what my notion of morality is, as I haven't stated it. My moral principles are based on my conception of the good, not on utilitarian ethics. Consent has nothing intrinsically to do with moral determinations. If person X consents to be killed and eaten alive by person Y, it is still immoral, even if both parties obtain some kind of pleasure from the activity. Likewise, having sex with a 13 year old girl is bad, even if she consents to it and desires it, because it does not built virtue, but has a corrupting effect on the girl. Girls are already overly sexualised as it is.
I haven't been "conditioned" to hold these opinions -- in fact, I used to be of the same opinion as you on this issue for many years. I don't base my opinions on social norms. I changed my mind on this issue because I have a better understanding the corrupting effects of intergenerational sex.
Other than the past one hundred years or so, for all of human history...
Not relevant. Slavery has existed for most of human history. Whether an act is objectively right and wrong is independent of the sociocultural norm.
it has been legal to engage in sexual intercourse with those who are not prepubescent. In much of the world it is still legal to engage in sexual interaction with those who are 13+ or 14+.
Not relevant. There is a distinction between legality and morality and the two may not be equivalent.
We have been evolutionarily programmed to find 14-17 year olds sexually attractive,
Not relevant. What we have been biologically programmed to do, and what is morally good, are not equivalent.
-
having sex with a 13 year old girl is bad, even if she consents to it and desires it, because it does not built virtue, but has a corrupting effect on the girl.
I guess before I can debate this further with you, you will need to define what 'virtue' is and what 'corrupting effect' sex has on a person (regardless of their sex, unless you hold males and females to a double standard when it comes to sex).
If person X consents to be killed and eaten alive by person Y, it is still immoral, even if both parties obtain some kind of pleasure from the activity. L
Assuming that person X truly desires to be killed and eaten alive (presumably not in that order), and is not coerced into this activity, and is not suffering from some mental illness causing them to be incapable of consenting to such a thing, I find it to not be immoral if they are killed and eaten alive. The question comes down to capability of consent in either case, and I would argue that most 14 year olds are capable of consenting to sex.
Sure I can accept your points that legality and social norms are irrelevant, indeed I claim that the current social norm of the USA forbidding sexual intercourse with most teenagers, and the fact that such intercourse has been illegal for the past hundred or so years, to be completely irrelevant to morality. Of course, the majority of people claim that it must be immoral because it is socially frowned upon and has been so for their entire lives. I can also agree that what we are biologically programmed to do is irrelevant to morality, after all men are biologically programmed to rape but it doesn't make rape moral.
-
Assuming that person X truly desires to be killed and eaten alive (presumably not in that order), and is not coerced into this activity, and is not suffering from some mental illness causing them to be incapable of consenting to such a thing, I find it to not be immoral if they are killed and eaten alive. The question comes down to capability of consent in either case, and I would argue that most 14 year olds are capable of consenting to sex.
Do you really think that a 14 year old is capable of consenting to sex? I mean, they can say the word yes, but do they truly understand the consequences of their actions? Do they realize the mental affect it will have on them?
A 14 year old is not totally mentally developed and in a world where we live to 80-90 years old, the necessity to breed at 14-15 is no longer there. When people would regularly die at 30, sure, getting married at 12 seems like a good idea.
But the world has changed. From my experience, there are a lot of 17-19 year old giving consent and they don't even know what they are getting into. Forget about a 14 year old.
-
Do you really think that a 14 year old is capable of consenting to sex? I mean, they can say the word yes, but do they truly understand the consequences of their actions? Do they realize the mental affect it will have on them?
A 14 year old is not totally mentally developed and in a world where we live to 80-90 years old, the necessity to breed at 14-15 is no longer there. When people would regularly die at 30, sure, getting married at 12 seems like a good idea.
But the world has changed. From my experience, there are a lot of 17-19 year old giving consent and they don't even know what they are getting into. Forget about a 14 year old.
As long as they're not being manipulated into having sex or otherwise pressured into it I don't see anything wrong with it. Is there anything really bad that can come out of it? Sex isn't bad, it's a very basic deed, like eating and drinking.. And eating a fruit that just got ripe isn't worse than eating a fruit that's been ripe for a few days...
-
Old enough to pee, old enough for me.
-
A common anecdotal theme I have noticed is that peoples opinions on this matter largely depend on the age they are. People in their late teens, all throughout their twenties and into their early thirties generally seem to be much less rigid about age of consent laws. I can think of at least a dozen people in their twenties off the top of my head who have expressed an opinion indicating that they find underage teenagers to be attractive and sexually desirable, and that they wouldn't mind sleeping with them. The people I hear complaining the loudest about this mentality tend to be in their forties, fifties or older. Now I don't think that we can really generalize to age too much, but it definitely seems to me that ephebephilia is much more accepted in younger generations than it is in older generations. Of course I also believe that all of the older males are ephebephiles as well, they just seem much more concerned about keeping up a facade.
-
Read Levine's "Harmful to Minors" is my advice.
-
A common anecdotal theme I have noticed is that peoples opinions on this matter largely depend on the age they are. People in their late teens, all throughout their twenties and into their early thirties generally seem to be much less rigid about age of consent laws. I can think of at least a dozen people in their twenties off the top of my head who have expressed an opinion indicating that they find underage teenagers to be attractive and sexually desirable, and that they wouldn't mind sleeping with them. The people I hear complaining the loudest about this mentality tend to be in their forties, fifties or older. Now I don't think that we can really generalize to age too much, but it definitely seems to me that ephebephilia is much more accepted in younger generations than it is in older generations. Of course I also believe that all of the older males are ephebephiles as well, they just seem much more concerned about keeping up a facade.
That's a self-serving argument not a principled one. I freely admit that I am an ephebophile. However, I make a distinction between my own desires and what is morally good. The fact that you keep appealing to the sexual desires of "most men" as a justification of sexual activity with minors suggests that you fail to grasp such a distinction. Your argument, nakedly stated, boils down to: men are attracted to underaged girls, therefore it is morally right that they should act on their desires. You will have to come up with a better argument if you want to convince anyone of the truth of your assertions.
I guess before I can debate this further with you, you will need to define what 'virtue' is and what 'corrupting effect' sex has on a person (regardless of their sex, unless you hold males and females to a double standard when it comes to sex).
Ethics should focus on the virtue of an agent, on what makes a person virtuous. The purpose of virtue is to tend towards the Good. The cultivation of virtue elevates us above the level of animal existence to the human and to the divine. Having sex with underaged girls tends pulls them down to the animal level; it is a movement of the will towards the finite and materialism. We should be cultivating their virtues instead, rather than using them to satisfy our sexual desires, which corrupts both them and ourselves.
The contrary view is usually based on some form of consequentialism, -- a seriously flawed moral philosophy, for it would require us to have certain knowledge of what is good an what is evil. Consequentialism is incapable of giving the necessarily objective account of good and evil that would be needed. There are a heap of other objections too.
-
I agree with your point on morality but how is it moral to have sex with an 18 year old but not with a 17 year old ? Or with a 16yo and not with a 15yo? I don't see why it's immoral to have sex with a 14 year old because, according to you, it has a corrupting effect on her. Having sex with a 20 year old would also have a corrupting effect if she's never done it before.
-
I agree with your point on morality but how is it moral to have sex with an 18 year old but not with a 17 year old ? Or with a 16yo and not with a 15yo? I don't see why it's immoral to have sex with a 14 year old because, according to you, it has a corrupting effect on her. Having sex with a 20 year old would also have a corrupting effect if she's never done it before.
A line has to be drawn somewhere. Unhealthy and promiscuous sex can have a corrupting effect on any individual regardless of age. But young suggestible minds are especially prone to corruption and exploitation by adults with dark or selfish motives. We have a human and spiritual nature, in addition to our animal nature. There are those who want to drag young people down to the animal level, to degrade them, deny their spiritual nature, and thus malign the created order.
-
I agree with your point on morality but how is it moral to have sex with an 18 year old but not with a 17 year old ? Or with a 16yo and not with a 15yo? I don't see why it's immoral to have sex with a 14 year old because, according to you, it has a corrupting effect on her. Having sex with a 20 year old would also have a corrupting effect if she's never done it before.
A line has to be drawn somewhere.
I will give a more in depth reply in a bit, but I would just like to point out that you have just affirmed my original claim that Your notion of morality in this case is an arbitrary and artificial construct.
Essentially you are falling victim to the is-ought logical fallacy ("A line has to be drawn somewhere, and the line is currently drawn at 18, so the line ought to be drawn at 18").
in other words: A is B so A should be B
-
I agree with your point on morality but how is it moral to have sex with an 18 year old but not with a 17 year old ? Or with a 16yo and not with a 15yo? I don't see why it's immoral to have sex with a 14 year old because, according to you, it has a corrupting effect on her. Having sex with a 20 year old would also have a corrupting effect if she's never done it before.
A line has to be drawn somewhere.
I will give a more in depth reply in a bit, but I would just like to point out that you have just affirmed my original claim that Your notion of morality in this case is an arbitrary and artificial construct.
Essentially you are falling victim to the is-ought logical fallacy ("A line has to be drawn somewhere, and the line is currently drawn at 18, so the line ought to be drawn at 18").
1.) as it is impossible to assess every case on an individual basis, a line does have to be drawn somewhere. That line may be arbitrary, but there's nothing arbitrary about the morality that justifies drawing a line somewhere. You are confusing morality with the practical, legal application thereof. Morality is not arbitrary or artificial; the legal application of moral principles may be arbitrary to some extent, but only by necessity.
I think there should be a legal age to buy alcohol, to do drugs, to join the military, to work, to have sex, etc., etc.
2.) My argument has never been along the lines of, "because there is already an age of consent, there OUGHT to be an age of consent". That is a strawman. I have appealed to moral principles, not the current laws and norms. As I have repeated several times now, morality (as distinct from ethics) is independent of the norms of society.
3.) I never said the line should be drawn at 18. I think it should be 16, and the older party should be within five years of the age of the younger party if the latter is under 16 - thus, a 15 year old could be sexually active with a 20 year old.
-
1.) as it is impossible to assess every case on an individual basis, a line does have to be drawn somewhere. That line may be arbitrary, but there's nothing arbitrary about the morality that justifies drawing a line somewhere. In the same way, there's nothing arbitrary about the idea that children shouldn't be recruited to serve in the military, even if the minimum age to enlist in the military is itself arbitrary. You are confusing morality with the practical, legal application thereof. Morality is not arbitrary or artificial; the legal application of moral principles may be arbitrary to some extent, but only by necessity.
I am actually not entirely against a system where people are qualified as capable of consenting. It is possible to qualify a person for a drivers license on an individual basis, I don't see why it is not possible to qualify people for ability to consent on an individual basis. It wouldn't make much sense to say that everybody of a certain age can drive, would it? The only reason I am against such a system is that it seems to involve a centralized authority, and I am against the idea of giving some arbitrary bureaucratic agency the ability to determine who is capable of engaging in sex, just as I am against the idea that the government decides who is capable of driving on roads (rather it should be decided by private road owners). On the other hand, it isn't as if we do not already have a centralized authority determining the age at which a person is capable of consent, it seems better if they decide these things based upon individual evidence of competency rather than arbitrarily. I never said that the morality that some sort of qualifier is required to engage in sexual activity is arbitrary, rather your specific qualifier is arbitrary, it is artificial and it is a recent social construct as well.
I think there should be a legal age to buy alcohol, to do drugs, to join the military, to work, etc., etc.
Do you pull these ages out of your ass as well?
2.) My argument has never been along the lines of, "because there is already an age of consent, there OUGHT to be an age of consent". That is a strawman. I have appealed to moral principles, not the current laws and norms. As I have repeated several times now, morality (as distinct from ethics) is independent of the norms of society.
You answered the question "why 18 instead of 17" with the claim that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, without further clarification this is apparently synonymous with saying "because there must be some age, and the age is 18, the age ought to 18".
3.) I never said the line should be drawn at 18. I think it should be 16, and the older party should be within five years of the age of the younger party if the latter is under 16 - thus, a 15 year old could be sexually active with a 20 year old.
This seems to be arbitrary as well. What is so special about 20 year olds that makes it so that they can have consensual sex with a 15 year old, but a 21 year old cannot? And what is so special about an 18 year old, that they can have sex with a 13 year old but a 19 year old cannot? Do you think that a 13 year old is capable of consenting to sex with an 18 year old, but on the day the 18 year old turns 19 they suddenly possess some exploitative power over the 13 year old? Or that the day a 12 year old turns 13 they suddenly gain some wisdom allowing them to engage in sexual activity with an 18 year old without it being exploitative? Your logic is apparently arbitrary, or you believe in some magical process that takes place on certain birthdays (am I the only one who notices a pattern of people associating magic to sexual things involving those under the age of 18?), or perhaps you do not take issue with consent at all but rather have some other driving motivation to prohibit certain people from engaging in sexual activity with certain others.
A line has to be drawn somewhere. Unhealthy and promiscuous sex can have a corrupting effect on any individual regardless of age. But young suggestible minds are especially prone to corruption and exploitation by adults with dark or selfish motives. We have a human and spiritual nature, in addition to our animal nature. There are those who want to drag young people down to the animal level, to degrade them, deny their spiritual nature, and thus malign the created order.
You say a lot of things without qualifying them. What is unhealthy about a 14 year old sleeping with a 20 year old that becomes healthy if the 14 year old becomes 15 before they 20 year old becomes 21? Does a 20 year old not have the same power of suggestion over a 15 year old as a 21 year old does?
That's a self-serving argument not a principled one. I freely admit that I am an ephebophile. However, I make a distinction between my own desires and what is morally good. The fact that you keep appealing to the sexual desires of "most men" as a justification of sexual activity with minors suggests that you fail to grasp such a distinction. Your argument, nakedly stated, boils down to: men are attracted to underaged girls, therefore it is morally right that they should act on their desires. You will have to come up with a better argument if you want to convince anyone of the truth of your assertions.
I actually quite explicitly stated that the sexual desires of most men are not moral justifications, when I pointed out that most men are evolutionarily programmed to rape but that rape is immoral. The core of my argument is that people who can consent to have sex with each other should be allowed do engage in sexual relationships with each other. I suppose that we must then define what consent is.
Consent is not just the ability to agree to do something - a five year old can be asked to engage in sexual activity and proceed to do so, however it is apparent that they do not have the ability to consent. The reason we would say that the five year old cannot consent is due to the fact that they do not comprehend the implications of what they are being asked to do. A bomb could be placed in a box with a button on it, configured such that if the button is pressed the bomb explodes. If I hand a person this box and ask them to press the button, it does not mean that they consent to be killed if they press the button. Consent requires a well rounded understanding of the potential consequences of a taken action.
Consent is not just the taking of an action while understanding the potential consequences of the action. If I place a bomb in a box as before, although this time I explain the details of the scenario to the person whom I ask to press the button, they have not consented to press the button if they only do so because I am holding a gun to the head of one of their loved ones. Consent requires a true desire to take an action, independently of external coercion. This is not to say that a person cannot take actions they regret having to take to reach a certain goal. For example, a person who has a desperately impoverished family but who also has a life insurance policy, may have a true desire to commit suicide in order to provide for their family. They can consent to be shot even though they would prefer not to be, because their desire to provide for their family outweighs their desire to live. The difference is that, in the case of the intentional suicide, the person took action based on their own cognition (ie: the idea to commit suicide to save their family arose from their own mind, and was not forced upon them by the malicious actions of another). Admittedly the distinction is hard to qualify, however I believe that we can agree that consent requires a true desire to take an action and that the desire can not have been brought to be by the rights violating activity of another person.
I believe that this enough to define consent. Consent is the taking of an action, while having a reasonable understanding of the potential consequences of the action, while having a true desire to take the action, without the desire stemming from the malicious rights violation of another party. Thus we can conclude that a person is capable of consenting to sex if they have a reasonable understanding of the potential consequences of engaging in sex and they still desire to engage in sex of their own free will. The reason rape is immoral is because inherently somebody who is raped does not desire to be raped of their own free will. Even if men are biologically programmed to desire rape, it is immoral to rape for the previously stated reason. A five year old is incapable of consenting to sex because they are incapable of having a reasonable understanding of (and appreciation for) the consequences of engaging in sexual activities.
Your five year age gap clearly shows that consent is not the issue you have with underage sex. If a 14 year old is capable of understanding and appreciating the potential consequences of sex, and they still decide to engage in sexual activity of their own free will, then they are capable of consenting to sexual interaction with a 30 year old just as well as they are capable of consenting to engage in sexual activity with a 19 year old. My argument is that a 14 year old is capable of knowing and appreciating the potential consequences of sexual activity as well as naturally biologically programmed to desire to engage in sexual activity of their own free will. A five year old is not biologically programmed to desire to engage in sexual activity, any desire a five year old has to engage in sexual activity is going to be a desire that comes from coercion (and additionally a 5 year old is not capable of understanding and appreciating the potential consequences of engaging in sexual activity). In addition to a 14 year old being able to understand and appreciate the potential consequences of engaging in sexual activity, and being biologically programmed to desire to engage in sexual activity, males are biologically programmed to desire to engage in sexual activity with 14 year olds (as per my previous logical analysis of males desire for youth and fertility), and therefor it is not immoral for adult males to engage in sexual activity with 14 year olds.
Ethics should focus on the virtue of an agent, on what makes a person virtuous. The purpose of virtue is to tend towards the Good. The cultivation of virtue elevates us above the level of animal existence to the human and to the divine. Having sex with underaged girls tends pulls them down to the animal level; it is a movement of the will towards the finite and materialism. We should be cultivating their virtues instead, rather than using them to satisfy our sexual desires, which corrupts both them and ourselves.
And again you like to use words without defining them. What is virtue? What makes a person virtuous. What is the property of being virtuous? Something that tends towards 'the good'? What is the Good then? I assume the Good is the expression of virtue, since that would complete your circular logic. I also don't see anything immoral about the finite (whatever the hell you mean by that, I suppose), and I definitely don't see anything immoral with materialism. Also, 14 year olds also have sexual desires, as they are biologically programmed to.
-
Not all but MOST of the dudes on that show where odd ball social wierdo's, attracted to mental immaturity -because its easier for them to become a sexual predator as opposed to engaging in a real -healthy relationship.
if some young adult dude fucked my 12 year old daughter, i would likely beat him to the point of severe hospitalization; if he is some old married fuck, i would beat him to almost the brink of death, then think about shooting myself for failing my daughter. real pedophiles are a mental cancer upon the human race, with a constant agenda to hurt kids for their selfish fulfillment.
-
I get the feeling that kmfkewm either hasn't spent enough time around today's younger teens and experienced their unfortunate condition, or doesn't care and is just trying to justify his own sexual proclivities. Today's teenagers are products of the times - profoundly hedonistic, infantile and oversexualized, all of which makes for a disastrous combination. Adolescents of former times were far different creatures who were given adult responsibilities and values from authority figures beginning at a much earlier age, and thus possessed personal restraint -- a crucial difference and something that most teens and tweens today lack entirely. It is this restraint that rendered an age of consent law unnecessary in those times, and it wasn't until recently that that restraint faded away and had to be replaced by legal restraint from the outside.
With today's culture it is just irresponsible to set young emotionally immature people out to be taken advantage of by experienced players. If it were something like arranged marriage or any sort of enforced commitment I don't think it would be as much of a problem. Otherwise it's just a recipe for creating emotionally damaged people.
The age of consent in my state is 16, which I believe is reasonable. To lower it or even eliminate it entirely would be reckless and a disservice to our already troubled children.
Age of consent laws are one of the last institutional barriers to degeneracy that still exist. Keep them on the books.
-
The age of consent in my state is 16, which I believe is reasonable. To lower it or even eliminate it entirely would be reckless and a disservice to our already troubled children.
Age of consent laws are one of the last institutional barriers to degeneracy that still exist. Keep them on the books.
Really so you think a ton changes between 14 and 16? The only reason you believe the age 16 is reasonable is because that is the age it is in your state, and even though you will never admit it you are obviously falling victim to the is-ought logical fallacy. You also strike me as a religious neoconservative and you probably would like to outlaw all sex that isn't for the purpose of procreation.
-
I liked ''To Catch a Predator'' because it was an unintentional indictment of America. Hansen is this normal white Christian guy, and the chomos he'd expose were mostly Jews, immigrant weirdos, wealthy shitlibs, self-styled negro lotharios, and some token typical lumpenproles. In other words, chomo demographics basically look like a DNC convention.
are shitlibs... 'shit libertarian' ?
If so, .. what is it that's 'shit' .. about a shit libertarian ?
The ones i know seem to be jolly nice... but i'm sure we don't know the same ones.
-
Really so you think a ton changes between 14 and 16?
No, as I have said repeatedly, I think an arbitrary line should be drawn somewhere. What is arbitrary is the age of consent, not the moral principles which justify having an age of consent. You commit the fallacy of assuming that because the practical, legal application of moral principles must be imperfect, the principle itself must be false, arbitrary, or artificial. This is something about which you seem to have a great deal of confusion.
The only reason you believe the age 16 is reasonable is because that is the age it is in your state, ...
Wrong. I held the same views as you did on this issue for many years, so obviously I don't base my opinion on the laws in our society. I base my opinions on a mature consideration of the arguments for and against the abolition of age of consent laws, as well as my own moral insights.
and even though you will never admit it you are obviously falling victim to the is-ought logical fallacy.
An is-ought fallacy would go as follows:
1. The age of consent in my state is 16 years old.
2. Therefore, the age of consent ought to be 16 years old.
I never made such an argument, nor do I think this. I appeal to moral principles, not legal considerations or social norms.
You also strike me as a religious neoconservative
That couldn't be further removed from the truth. I am a non-ideological (ex-Marxist) Buddhist ascetic with anarchist leanings.
-
That couldn't be further removed from the truth. I am a non-ideological (ex-Marxist) Buddhist ascetic with anarchist leanings.
...and the father of a 12-year old daughter, I'll wager!
-
That couldn't be further removed from the truth. I am a non-ideological (ex-Marxist) Buddhist ascetic with anarchist leanings.
...and the father of a 12-year old daughter, I'll wager!
Nope. I am in my early 20s.
-
No, as I have said repeatedly, I think an arbitrary line should be drawn somewhere. What is arbitrary is the age of consent, not the moral principles which justify having an age of consent. You commit the fallacy of assuming that because the practical, legal application of moral principles must be imperfect, the principle itself must be false, arbitrary, or artificial. This is something about which you seem to have a great deal of confusion.
And it just so happens that you think the arbitrary line should be drawn exactly where it is? And you think if you grew up in a community with 14 as the age of consent, that you would still think 16 is appropriate but 14 is not? It seems highly likely that cultural conditioning has led you to select the arbitrary age that you have selected. I never said there should be no age of consent, so that is a strawman. Clearly people who have no biological drive to engage in sexual activity should not be manipulated into engaging in sexual activity, and that draws a pretty firm minimum line at about 12. If you take it further and say that nobody who has not reached late or end stage sexual maturation should engage in sexual activity, then the line moves up to about 14.
Wrong. I held the same views as you did on this issue for many years, so obviously I don't base my opinion on the laws in our society. I base my opinions on a mature consideration of the arguments for and against the abolition of age of consent laws, as well as my own moral insights.
And just coincidentally your new found beliefs perfectly coincide with the law of the state that you happen to live in? That is just a freak correlation without a causative relationship?
An is-ought fallacy would go as follows:
1. The age of consent in my state is 16 years old.
2. Therefore, the age of consent ought to be 16 years old.
I never made such an argument, nor do I think this. I appeal to moral principles, not legal considerations or social norms.
Sure, you appeal to moral principles that have come to be based upon the arbitrary and artificial social construct of your community. This means that you have been conditioned into having your sense of morality. Your logic almost certainly is going to boil down to "The age of consent in my state is 16 years old, therefor the age of consent ought to be 16 years old". You have given no reason for why 16 years old is the appropriate age other than that an arbitrary line needs to be drawn somewhere, and it seems like quite a coincidence to me that the arbitrary line your morality dictates you to draw happens to perfectly coincide with the legal system of your community. I find it highly unlikely that your line would be at 16 years old if you happened to have been born in Spain or Croatia for example. Unless you would still think the age of consent should be 16 even if you were born somewhere where the age of consent is lower or higher, then clearly your sense of morality is the result of social conditioning. It is an exceptionally common trend, everybody seems to think the age of consent should be exactly what it is in the community they are from, even though the ages of consent in different communities varies by as much as ten years of age!
That couldn't be further removed from the truth. I am a non-ideological (ex-Marxist) Buddhist ascetic with anarchist leanings.
I don't think Anarchists support the idea of the government telling people when they are ready to have sex, so you don't seem to be leaning very far.
-
And it just so happens that you think the arbitrary line should be drawn exactly where it is?
it's more than probable that different people reach a maturity where they can give meaningful consent at different ages. But let's assume that no 11-year-olds are mature enough to give meaningful consent to sex, and that all normal 18-year-olds are mature enough. So all people reach that point somewhere between 12 and 17. It seems reasonable to assume that very few 12-year-olds can meaningfully consent. It also seems reasonable to assume that almost all 17-year-olds can meaningfully consent. So the line probably belongs somewhere between 13 and 16.
Sixteen is a pretty good place to draw the line. Yes, some 15-year-olds may be mature enough for sex, but I would rather have a law a little too harsh to protect the 16-year-olds who aren't, than too lax and fail to protect the 15-year-olds who aren't.
I think the age of consent should be lower (maybe 13 or 14) where the people involved are similar in age - as I don't think the criminalisation of teenage sexual activity is necessary, but should remain the same where one party is much older - to prevent coercion from more powerful adults. The sort of age difference I am thinking about would be about 5 years.
And you think if you grew up in a community with 14 as the age of consent, that you would still think 16 is appropriate but 14 is not?
Absolutely. I don't base my opinions on what is the norm in my community. If that were so, I would have completely different opinions on most issues than the ones I actually hold.
If you take it further and say that nobody who has not reached late or end stage sexual maturation should engage in sexual activity, then the line moves up to about 14.
Obviously, the nature of people is such that the actual age of sufficient mental capability is going to vary from person to person. Some may be sufficient mature at 14, others may never, ever be mature enough.
But the law can't afford to take each case on an individual basis. So an arbitrary line has to be drawn to establish an age. Some would have been mature enough sooner, others will be mature enough later. I imagine the line is drawn at some sort of median age.
And just coincidentally your new found beliefs perfectly coincide with the law of the state that you happen to live in?
My beliefs on 99% of issues don't coincide with what is the norm in my community. The fact that I happen to agree with the age of consent laws that exist in my state isn't significant or relevant.
Sure, you appeal to moral principles that have come to be based upon the arbitrary and artificial social construct of your community.
1.) The morality that prevails in my community is contrary to my personal beliefs. If I based my morality on the values that prevail in my community, rather than a detached consideration of philosophical principles, I would be in favour of sexual libertinism and hedonistic degeneracy
2.) Even if you were right (and you couldn't be more wrong), you are committing the genetic fallacy -- that because you can point to the origin of my beliefs, you have thereby refuted them. The supposed social origin of my beliefs has no bearing on the truth or falsity of my assertions.
This means that you have been conditioned into having your sense of morality.
I have been conditioned only by my own experience of moral truths which are independent of time and place.
It is an exceptionally common trend, everybody seems to think the age of consent should be exactly what it is in the community they are from, ...
No, I think, ideally, age of consent laws should be abolished, and all sex should be within the confines of marriage - a view that is completely out of place to the values of my community. But I think in the culture that prevails today, age of consent laws are desirable for pragmatic reasons -- they are, as I have said, one of the last defences against sexual degeneracy. S
I don't think Anarchists support the idea of the government telling people when they are ready to have sex, so you don't seem to be leaning very far.
Only to your conception of anarchism.
-
it's more than probable that different people reach a maturity where they can give meaningful consent at different ages. But let's assume that no 11-year-olds are mature enough to give meaningful consent to sex, and that all normal 18-year-olds are mature enough. So all people reach that point somewhere between 12 and 17. It seems reasonable to assume that very few 12-year-olds can meaningfully consent. It also seems reasonable to assume that almost all 17-year-olds can meaningfully consent. So the line probably belongs somewhere between 13 and 16.
Shockingly 'somewhere between 13 and 16' happens to be 14.5, which is the average age that complete sexual maturity is reached!
Sixteen is a pretty good place to draw the line. Yes, some 15-year-olds may be mature enough for sex, but I would rather have a law a little too harsh to protect the 16-year-olds who aren't, than too lax and fail to protect the 15-year-olds who aren't.
I would rather have a law that is lax enough that normal men are not victimized to a far greater degree than a 14 year old girl who *chooses* to have sex with an older man would be. Who do you think is more fucked, the 20 year old gets caught sleeping with a willing 14 year old, or the 14 year old who willingly slept with a 20 year old who got caught? Anyway why don't you care about the percentage of 16 year olds who are not mature enough for sex? Because there are less of them? What is the number of people that you are willing to fail to protect? Shouldn't we just keep increasing the age of consent, as every additional year it increases will 'protect' more people? Or at least raise it so high that those who are not protected are only those who never would be capable of meaningful consent in any case? Maybe the U.S.A. should increase its age of consent to 21, like Madagascar, in order to protect all of the vulnerable (possibly 17), 18, 19 and 20 year olds!
I think the age of consent should be lower (maybe 13 or 14) where the people involved are similar in age - as I don't think the criminalisation of teenage sexual activity is necessary, but should remain the same where one party is much older - to prevent coercion from more powerful adults. The sort of age difference I am thinking about would be about 5 years.
And another arbitrary line. What power has a 20 year old got over a 14 year old that a 19 year old doesn't? It sounds like you rolled dice to come up with your morality system.
2.) Even if you were right (and you couldn't be more wrong), you are committing the genetic fallacy -- that because you can point to the origin of my beliefs, you have thereby refuted them. The supposed social origin of my beliefs has no bearing on the truth or falsity of my assertions.
Your claim that your beliefs are based on morality allows me to prove that the assertions derived from your beliefs are subjective rather than objective, if I can show that your sense of morality is derived from cultural conditioning. As you yourself have said, societal norms are completely irrelevant to objective right and wrong. Demonstrating that societal norms have a causative rather than correlative relationship with your sense of morality would thus demonstrate that your sense of morality is completely irrelevant to objective right and wrong.
No, I think, ideally, age of consent laws should be abolished, and all sex should be within the confines of marriage - a view that is completely out of place to the values of my community. But I think in the culture that prevails today, age of consent laws are desirable for pragmatic reasons -- they are, as I have said, one of the last defences against sexual degeneracy. S
And there you go sounding like a religious neoconservative again.
Only to your conception of anarchism.
I am pretty sure that anarchism and "the government decides when you get to have sex" are mutually exclusive.
-
I think there is a point here that both of you are missing. For the same reason that a boss shouldn't sleep with his employee and a teacher with his student, there is a power differential between an adult and an adolescent, even someone 14 or 15 years old, that calls into question whether they truly consent, even if they are capable of doing so.
In many places, the law takes this into account. It's legal for two underage people to have sex, as long as they are not more than 2 years apart in age, for example. So a 15 year old and a 17 year old can have sex, but a 15 year old and a 24 hear old can't. That makes sense to me.
-
In many places the law takes this into account by forbidding teachers from sleeping with their students, or bosses from sleeping with their employees of a certain age, even though somebody who is not the teacher or boss of the person can still legally sleep with them. If power difference is your main concern it would seem that this is a better solution than arbitrary age restrictions. There is a huge power differential between a billionaire adult male and a poor adult female, should we forbid them from sleeping together as well? The issue boils down entirely to consent, and if a 14 year old can consent to sleep with a 14 year old then a 14 year old can consent to sleep with a 30 year old.
-
The issue boils down entirely to consent, and if a 14 year old can consent to sleep with a 14 year old then a 14 year old can consent to sleep with a 30 year old.
You can be capable of giving consent without giving voluntary consent, as demonstrated by the boss-employee example, which is the issue that large age differences raise, especially between adults and non-adults, since adults have more power over non-adults.
There is a huge power differential between a billionaire adult male and a poor adult female, should we forbid them from sleeping together as well?
In the spectrum from intimidation to fear to terror, at some point it does become rape.
-
You can be capable of giving consent without giving voluntary consent, as demonstrated by the boss-employee example, which is the issue that large age differences raise, especially between adults and non-adults, since adults have more power over non-adults.
Consent, by definition, is voluntary. Additionally, billionaires have more power over poor people than poor people have over billionaires. I take it that we should break apart consensual abilities based on gross income as well? Strong people have more power over weak people, and most men are stronger than most females, so maybe our species should die out. What about politicians, they have more power than the average person, should they also be restricted to having sex only with other politicians? There are power discrepancies all over the place, saying that power discrepancy is the basis of why 16 year olds can sleep with 20 year olds, but 14 year olds cannot, is essentially saying that we need a much, much, much more complex consent system.
There is a huge power differential between a billionaire adult male and a poor adult female, should we forbid them from sleeping together as well?
In the spectrum from intimidation to fear to terror, at some point it does become rape.
Sure, and when it does become rape it should be illegal. But when it becomes rape that means there is not consent.
-
Consent, by definition, is voluntary. Additionally, billionaires have more power over poor people than poor people have over billionaires. I take it that we should break apart consensual abilities based on gross income as well? Strong people have more power over weak people, and most men are stronger than most females, so maybe our species should die out. What about politicians, they have more power than the average person, should they also be restricted to having sex only with other politicians? There are power discrepancies all over the place, saying that power discrepancy is the basis of why 16 year olds can sleep with 20 year olds, but 14 year olds cannot, is essentially saying that we need a much, much, much more complex consent system.
Rich people, politicians, rock stars can certainly take advantage of their power to exploit people, but the vast majority of people fucking them want to do it. I mean, who doesn't want to fuck someone famous?
I simply doubt that the vast majority of 14 year olds fucking 30 year olds are doing so because they want to. I believe the vast majority of those cases are exploitative.
-
Consent, by definition, is voluntary. Additionally, billionaires have more power over poor people than poor people have over billionaires. I take it that we should break apart consensual abilities based on gross income as well? Strong people have more power over weak people, and most men are stronger than most females, so maybe our species should die out. What about politicians, they have more power than the average person, should they also be restricted to having sex only with other politicians? There are power discrepancies all over the place, saying that power discrepancy is the basis of why 16 year olds can sleep with 20 year olds, but 14 year olds cannot, is essentially saying that we need a much, much, much more complex consent system.
Rich people, politicians, rock stars can certainly take advantage of their power to exploit people, but the vast majority of people fucking them want to do it. I mean, who doesn't want to fuck someone famous?
I simply doubt that the vast majority of 14 year olds fucking 30 year olds are doing so because they want to. I believe the vast majority of those cases are exploitative.
I mean, I don't think there are going to be hordes of 14 year olds running out looking for 30 year olds to fuck, but when such a case arises without coercion I don't think it should be illegal. And when I was younger (14-16) I did know some girls who fucked guys in their 20's and in some cases even older, and they sure were not coerced into doing so. Of course the vast majority of the girls I knew didn't , but some did.
-
Great debate, complete with a few laughs.
Love y'all!
-
There is a UK version of how to catch a predator now called "Stinson Hunter" but the guy basically turns up in parks to met them, they run away and he chases them....nothing on how to catch a predator.
-
If some asshole showed up instead of my date, I think at that point, I would just rape him.
-
Old enough to pee, old enough for me.
Got to go along with that, If there's grass on the field we can play....Any man who hasn't looked at a schoolgirl, you know a mature Schoolgirl. And steamed of her, is lying his ass off.
Everytime I pass the school by mine, my form straightens without conscious volition.
Look at the likes of Roman Polanski, This subject is covered in detail in the magnificent film Lolita.
Years ago, young women were prized and much sought after. In fact in Uganda they marry 12 year olds. If they can ovulate, they can get pregnant, If they can get preggo, they can take it.
-
The cultivation of virtue elevates us above the level of animal existence to the human and to the divine. Having sex with underaged girls tends pulls them down to the animal level; it is a movement of the will towards the finite and materialism. We should be cultivating their virtues instead, rather than using them to satisfy our sexual desires, which corrupts both them and ourselves.
...
Today's teenagers are products of the times - profoundly hedonistic, infantile and oversexualized, all of which makes for a disastrous combination.
...
No, I think, ideally, age of consent laws should be abolished, and all sex should be within the confines of marriage - a view that is completely out of place to the values of my community. But I think in the culture that prevails today, age of consent laws are desirable for pragmatic reasons -- they are, as I have said, one of the last defences against sexual degeneracy.
You are seriously tipping your hand as a prudish, "oh-no-the-world-is-ending!", religiously indoctrinated, insecure, conservative retard. Maybe when (if) you finally swipe that v-card, you'll come to your senses a bit.
-
To catch a predator is funny somtimes.
I like the guy who gets caught twice and then says 'ooops'
Seriously though - I've worked with teenage girls - they are predatory but you got to remember - even though they might imitate being women - they are still children and adults have a duty of care.
And on that show, some of the 'bait' is 12, 13 which is paedophile territory.
I think any guy who hits up on an underage girl online is a bit of an idiot.
But, in defence of some, I'd have to say if I was 17 again, a 15 yr old girl is hardly a child. But if your over 30 - its a NO GO.
And as a father, what would you do if some 50 yr old turned up to 'hang out' with your 12 yr old? I'll be honest, I'd tyre jack the son of a dog.
I got to say, the 'Perverted Justice' team look a bit creepy. But as for entrapment, sorry, if your hitting on a 12 yr old - your either an imbecile or need your dick severing.
There is a comedy clip with the 'To Catch a Predator' presenter being entrapped into a prize acceptance.
There are a few funny moments such as the fainting Asian guy or the naked Asian guy.
I like they way the presenter says 'put em on the table' in reference to condoms, lube and other things.
Hope they don't start doing To Catch a Hash Smoker'. ;D
I admit, I'd be all over any good hash!
-
Yeah they are idiots beyond any doubt. It is a stupid risk to take, at least from my perspective. A lot of them don't seem to be exclusive ephebophiles or hebephiles either, although for the ones who are I guess I can understand why they would take such a risk. If they are trying to meet up with 12 year olds or 13 year olds I don't feel so bad for them, although they are still clearly no where near as bad as someone trying to fuck a 5 or 6 year old. I think the law in USA differentiates between over 12 and under 12, as well as over 16 and under 16 in the states that have an age of consent over 16. I mostly just feel bad for the ones who get busted trying to fuck 14+ year olds though, particularly so if they are 16+ considering that is legal in the majority of the USA as well as the vast majority of the world. It makes no sense that somebody doing something in one state is a sexual predator, but somebody doing the same thing just a few miles away across state lines is considered to be normal. Then again, it doesn't make much sense that somebody doing something in Spain should be considered normal while somebody doing the same thing in the USA is considered a dangerous sexual predator. It is very arbitrary and people tend to just go along with whatever their own microscopic community has predetermined for them, even if they claim otherwise. Obviously pretty close to nobody wants their 12 year old daughter to have sex with some 50 year old, but it seems strange to me that people seem to think that 12 year olds want to have sex with 50 year olds in the first place. 99 percent of the time I imagine that if a 50 year old proposes sex with a 12 year old, the 12 year old will be disgusted and probably freak out about it. Hell, in most cases a 20 year old wouldn't want to have sex with a 50 year old.
-
And on that show, some of the 'bait' is 12, 13 which is paedophile territory.
Indeed. But the picture they send of the girl is of an 18+ year old girl. Isn't that cheating?
-
Baby show me some ID. You fine as a motherfucker but you might be sixteen, and I ain't trying end up in the penitentiary, have you screaming daddy take some of that dick up out of meeeee.