Members Kestral Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by 80k I never read sdre's thread. But for the record, i full supported GorillaLover in this thread (see first page). I don't see anything wrong at all with either scenarios, and i still stand by what i said originally.80-gay... good one. Sorry about that, you beat me to reply before I could change that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Microwave Walrus Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 damn i'm really itching for updates to this thread!!!! GORILLA WHERE ARE YOU?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteveR Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by Kestral OR it's like him being 29 and her being 23. Big {censored}ing deal. You weird ass Evangelical-Americans are {censored}ed. I guess, but no {censored} is worth going to jail over. In the states I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 80k Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 i think the only reason people supported sdre but not Gorillalover is because no one actually believed sdre would get laid. ok, that was mean... but perhaps there's some truth to that? .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kestral Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by SteveR I guess, but no {censored} is worth going to jail over. In the states I mean. Definitely not. Here in Canada the age of consent is 14 but I have to say, never have I ever come close to it. The youngest I've ever gone was 15 (and that's when I was 15 myself). It's funny, a friend of mine is 35 and he just started dating someone who's 20 and he's feeling all bad about it and I'm like, what the {censored} bro? Her age doesn't even matter. She makes you happy, she's awesome to hang out with and she's happy to. PLUS you have to admit that when they're that young, everything is firm and tight as hell. He had to concede to my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BrendanO Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by Kestral Just to play Devil's Advocate here, in the previous generation, it wasn't unusual to have been married in the early teens and have children and a family. Yeah, but they lived to the rip old age of 30 if they weren't taken out by bears or polio. I don't think that rationalization holds water. Yeah, it used to be that way, when most people farmed their own land, and needed all the help they could get; and 45 was a creaky old soul with a foot in the grave. I couldn't fathom dating somone 18, let alone 17. I think 19 is still a bit young. Look, man, just don't stick in her ass, okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteveR Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by Kestral Definitely not. Here in Canada the age of consent is 14 but I have to say, never have I ever come close to it. The youngest I've ever gone was 15 (and that's when I was 15 myself). Yeah, in the states you have to get what we call "parental consent forms" and then if those are filled out you can pump that ripe {censored} til it bleeds! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kestral Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by SteveR Yeah, in the states you have to get what we call "parental consent forms" and then if those are filled out you can pump that ripe {censored} til it bleeds! Somehow, I have a feeling that those forms don't get filled out very often (unless there's a lot of $$$ involved) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kestral Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by BrendanO Yeah, but they lived to the rip old age of 30 if they weren't taken out by bears or polio. I don't think that rationalization holds water. Yeah, it used to be that way, when most people farmed their own land, and needed all the help they could get; and 45 was a creaky old soul with a foot in the grave. I couldn't fathom dating somone 18, let alone 17. I think 19 is still a bit young. Look, man, just don't stick in her ass, okay? Doesn't matter. Age is not relative, it's absolute. So let's say science and medicine improved dramatically in the next few years and human life expectancy doubles form 70 to 140. By your logic, we would have to raise the age of consent to 32.Gay argument alert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BrendanO Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by Kestral Doesn't matter. Age is not relative, it's absolute. So let's say science and medicine improved dramatically in the next few years and human life expectancy doubles form 70 to 140. By your logic, we would have to raise the age of consent to 32. Gay argument alert I said nothing of the sort. You're inferring a falacious argument. Hell, I'm not quite sure where you're inferring it from. I said that back in the day, lives were much shorter, I said nothing about raising the legal age. "My logic" is all yours.If age wasn't relative, then why don't we see more 14 year olds with families? Had them in the 1600s. 18 year olds with morgages? Because, certainly, they were able to back then, if age is absolute, they should be able to cope the same in 2005 as 1854. Because, afterall, 18is 18.Incorrect. Age is relative, because as society changes, the roll of age changes. Now, 17 is still "a child" as so many have said. Raising it to 32? Unlikely. Age of consent is based not only on age, but puberty, biological processes. So, unless the same life extenstion medicine were to slow the maturing process, then no, there would be needing it.Hypothetically, though, if they made it so the average person didn't get hair in funny places until 25, then maybe it wouldn't seem "outrageous" in the context of society.Age is relative. That's precisely WHY he'd be a creepy bastards if he nailed her. If age were absolute, hell, it's only 6 years. 6 is just a number. However, in relative terms, it's a lifetime. 60 years ago, would he have seemed "creepy?" Not as such as we're looking at it now. But today? Yes. Yes we do. Age is relative, then, wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kestral Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by BrendanO 60 years ago, would he have seemed "creepy?" Not as such as we're looking at it now. But today? Yes. Yes we do. Age is relative, then, wouldn't you say? No, I wouldn't say. You pretty much killed your own argument when you said that age also has to do with biological processes, which are NOT relative. So since they aren't, then age is not relative, since if 14 year olds were able to have children in earlier times, then it is obviously absolute, not relative. The only relativeness is the so-called social mores of the time aka, the GAY-i-facation of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BrendanO Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by Kestral No, I wouldn't say. You pretty much killed your own argument when you said that age also has to do with biological processes, which are NOT relative. So since they aren't, then age is not relative, since if 14 year olds were able to have children in earlier times, then it is obviously absolute, not relative.The only relativeness is the so-called social mores of the time aka, the GAY-i-facation of America. I killed my own argument? You said back in the day, they had families at 17. That's age relativism, in relation to society now. And, biologically speaking, if they're able to have them, why don't they? Age is relative. Back then it was expected to start a family at 17/18. Now it's later. The biology might be absolute (well, more or less, so, with all the hormones pumped into meat these days, we have 6'2" eigth graders), but the roll that person plays, biologically or not, changes. The puberty may be absolute, but that in no way makes the age absolute, since that's a function of culture. We still see 14 year old wives in other countries, but none in our own. Biological prepadedness does not equate mental or societal. They didn't have high school back then, hell, grade school. You got on and started a family because you had to, not could. They're equiped too, but no more prepared today at 25 than back then at 18. Age is relative. Biology might be absolute (not even in numbers, since that's changing even now, but in terms of pre/post pubescence), but again, it's role changes. Meaning today, in 2005, he shouldn't {censored} her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BrendanO Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 I'm not even sure why I'm in this debate; he shouldn't {censored} her, regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SteveR Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by Kestral Somehow, I have a feeling that those forms don't get filled out very often (unless there's a lot of $$$ involved) A guy I used to work with had the forms in his car just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kestral Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally posted by SteveR A guy I used to work with had the forms in his car just in case. That's like a gay guy having his ass lubed in the morning "just in case" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vanguard Posted May 13, 2005 Members Share Posted May 13, 2005 i just gotta say this all sounds a little sketchy...but only based on your prior relationships w/ the opposite sex. it sounds like you have {censored}ed around quite a lot. IF you have some how reformed yourself, and no longer have intentions of having threesomes with chicks in your apt. while high on shrooms...go for it. HOWEVER, if you are gonna pull wierd, wreckless {censored} (like it sounds like you have in the past) then leave her the hell alone. I met my girlfriend when she was 17 and i was 21 a little over 2 years ago. She committed right off the bat completely, and it scared me. I stayed aloof and {censored}ed with her head for the first few months....man was that a {censored}ed up thing for me to do. short story long....i realized the error of my ways, and have been treating her like a princess ever since. we are really happy together; but the age thing was initially a factor, and i had to resolve to be extra sensitive to cater to her needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TheGZeus,OnFire Posted May 14, 2005 Members Share Posted May 14, 2005 Ok you with your honiness and mother complex need to back away from the virgin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ShatteredMindofBob Posted May 14, 2005 Members Share Posted May 14, 2005 okay, I haven't read this thread, but if you've decided no...um...could you uh...introduce me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Craqster Posted May 14, 2005 Members Share Posted May 14, 2005 Hey, I'm 17/m/DFW, TX. She 'n I'd be legal. What's her number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kestral Posted May 14, 2005 Members Share Posted May 14, 2005 Originally posted by Distantkool Hey, I'm 17/m/DFW, TX. She 'n I'd be legal. What's her number? Dude, if she's in Canada she's been legal for at least 3 years now. She could be banging an 80 year old dude up here and it's legal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BryanMichael Posted May 14, 2005 Members Share Posted May 14, 2005 Originally posted by Kestral Dude, if she's in Canada she's been legal for at least 3 years now. She could be banging an 80 year old dude up here and it's legal! The age of consent is not uniform in the U.S. It is a state thing, not a federal thing. In Ohio the legal age is 16 I believe and I think it may be 16 or even 14 in Kentucky. What people are capable of at various ages has not changed, what society EXPECTS of us at various ages HAS changed. A 16 year old is quite capable of taking care of a family and running a farm, but society does not expect that of us at 16 anymore-its' a luxury that childhood has been extended.Also, that whole thing that people didn't live very long back in the day is a little skewed. TONS of people lived well into their 70's or 80's, but the life expectancy was lower because of high infant mortality, disease, and other natural factors- but it doesn't mean that everyone at 46 was old an decrepit 100 years ago. Ben Franklin was 83 when he died. George Washington was 67. Thomas Jefferson was 83. Wyatt Earp died at 80...in 1929!BUffalo Bill was 71. Sitting Bull was 59. Frederick Douglass was 77. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hell Bites Posted September 3, 2005 Members Share Posted September 3, 2005 Bump! We have a lot of new formulites now that may be able to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.