“Most of you” is quite a widespread disgusting insult actually.
Please show where ANYONE has said it’s okay to fuck others’ kids!
It is…
Disputing the age of consent is akin to it…
Unless you’re fucking Adam and Eve, you’re always fucking others’ kids.
Reminds me, …public display
In the throes of a new romance, I was smitten, every opportunity to kiss this man, I sought. Once we were both in an elevator, with one other man. As the elevator descended, I said to my man, “kiss me”, he suddenly became very reticent about this as the other man would no doubt see us. I persisted and persisted and he refused and refused, pointing out we were not alone, which made me desire him more. This went on for about four floors, until the other man who had been silent, suddenly said, “kiss her mate, because if you don’t, I will”.
Ground Floor.
We three tumbled out laughing, me still “unkissed”.
Is this considered a public display? I thought it is was rather stingy on his part, needless to say we did not last the distance.
No. Even if we discuss the age of consent, this is not warrant to “:Fuck another’s child.”
As far as I remember the age of consent argument has concerned matters of legal fact.
The age of consent is basically what determines whether one is officially a child or not (that is, not an adult; not nobody’s offspring). So the statement “Disputing the age of consent [namely, saying it should perhaps be lower] is akin to saying it’s okay to fuck others’ kids” is a truism.
The age of consent should be idally, whatver age a person regardless he or she is an adult or a child, consents to with a reasonable amount of education and information there unto. Usually it’s other’ who draws artificial lines, not withstanding, that some
children mature at faster rate than others. Limits should be set by one effected, not the one effecting.
No, because if the dispute is about the “legal age”, then anyone over that age is ipso facto NOT a kid. For the suggestion “it is okay to fuck another’s child” to be true, would entail fucking children REGARDLESS of the age of consent, as disputing the legal age of consent successfully would render those people adults and therefore legal.
Do keep up.
Exactly. Hence the truism.
I have been keeping up. If the age of consent is 18, fucking anyone under 18 is fucking another’s kid. However, if I dispute that age, in the sense of saying it should perhaps be lower, this is tantamount to saying that, say, a 17 year old should not be considered a kid. So yes, disputing the age of consent in this sense is akin to saying it’s okay to fuck others’ kids, because at the time of the dispute those people are, indeed, still legally kids–namely, under the age of consent. This is the truism I was talking about.
There is one overlooked thing here: Aside from the fucking, regardless of whether or not the issue of the age of consent was properly disposed of, the constant survallience of the possible parent behind the kid becomes constant preoccupation. There is no telling,
what strange apparitions of threatening and oft dangerous relations may seek retribution.Therefore an indulgance into those of questionable age, fragility and naivete, carries with it
an element of risk.
This risk may too, severly limit liberties taken, and many have gone down this path, sorry of this relation.
Bollocks.
The age of consent is what the current government says it is.
That is 16 in the UK, 12 in the Vatican, and various other places on earth.
Discussing the reasoning behind the law, has fuck all to do with people on this thread wanting to fuck children.
If the age of consent were lower, they might not be children (e.g., if it were 0, none of them would be). Anyway, I don’t know what people you’re talking about. If the age of consent were 25, I for one would want to fuck a child.
The age of consent is not a determinative of what constitutes a child. It is the sexual, psychological, and social determinates which is.
It is the legal determinative. But yes, it should be based on the other things you mention. Which may be different for everyone.
Sauwellios, - the legal and moral designations may correspond , overlap, or not. If they do correspond, then their effect is the same, if not, their effect is a matter of interpretation, often resulting in conflict. The irresolution of conflict may be inter personal, where dissension can come to bad ends, or, intra psychic, where the person with moral standards will be troubled by inconsistency. It is the safest and best policy to have a corresponding set of behavior, in order that cognitive dissonance or violence of any kind can be avoided.
The age of consent determines what is and what is not a child.
Legally, yes.
Fuckin’ Dah.
The point is that the discussion can continue without any evil intent suggested by MagsJ.
We agree!
I’d be careful about that.