traed said: It only truly is a taste of your own medicine. Oh yeah, here's the post: Enjoy.Strawman and a personal attack.. way to go... |
| theirs no such thing as illegal opinion just extremely unethical and unpopular ones. |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
shirakawa_megumi said: Soverign said: That is as much gynocentrism as it is internalized misandry. The idea of the Daughter rejecting the Father for another male is either projected externally aggressively, ie, controlling or hazing of potential suitors. Or it is internalized and incites passive aggressive behaviors. It is a double standard that is accepted as it plays on this by reducing the number of peepee's in the competition bracket and protects Daughter's sacred boobs from male interlopers. How does make sense, when parents do that for his own son...? This could make sense if they were advocating for every 5 year old besides their to chop their dick of, but you own son? I think this is because having transkid is valuable as woke trophy. Dude. You must not be around many people. Go to your favorite porn provider and simply look up the vast volumes of Father/Daughter taboo incest. I mean, who could they possibly make that for?Hmmmm. Anyways, obviously society as a whole ultimately frowns on incest, as it has a vested interest in not churning out inbred mutant babies for ts next generation of successors and all that. but if she just gets a little nudge in the right direction you know? *wink wink* Then you have the typical Boomer parent who proudly proclaims his son needs to have a job and be out by the time he can walk. You know, tough love and all that. Also, I tied that advanced internet psychoanalysis in rather nicely with your hormone statement about why confused five year olds want to have teh boobies. Boobies are sacred protect me Daddy! V_V |
 |
shirakawa_megumi said: Soverign said: That is as much gynocentrism as it is internalized misandry. The idea of the Daughter rejecting the Father for another male is either projected externally aggressively, ie, controlling or hazing of potential suitors. Or it is internalized and incites passive aggressive behaviors. It is a double standard that is accepted as it plays on this by reducing the number of peepee's in the competition bracket and protects Daughter's sacred boobs from male interlopers. How does make sense, when parents do that for his own son...? This could make sense if they were advocating for every 5 year old besides their to chop their dick of, but you own son? I think this is because having transkid is valuable as woke trophy. evetheplug said: Obviously by disapproving in animated children being sexualized, I also disprove of actual children being sexualized. That's a no brainer... So you think that's the way because government says so? So if aoc is 15-16 in other countries they are wrong and this 15-17 year old are systematically oppressed or what? I'm just gonna remind you, they still need to consent or it's just rape if they not. Also about lolis, if you think that guys who fap to Megumin doujinshi are capable of being predators or are, from behind their computers... Guess everybody who ever read some doujinshi with lolis are equal to Epstein. "So you think that's the way because government says so?" ... Of course.. is this satire? Imagine thinking a societies' laws don't impact a person's belief. How naive are you? Japan's age of consent is different from California's. (For example). And would you not say Japanese and Californians attitude towards sexualizing young girls is different? Also there's no need for you to try teaching me how consent works I'm perfectly aware. " Guess everybody who ever read some doujinshi with lolis are equal to Epstein.' Ahh yes the infamous 'I haVE NoTHIGN eLSE To sUpport My ARGUment TIme FoR RiiDicuLous OvERstATMENT To DriVE MY PoinT HOmE." I don't see anyone comparing sad neckbeards who fap to underage anime girls in their mom's basement to Epstein. Try again. |
  |
shirakawa_megumi said: evetheplug said: "So you think that's the way because government says so?" ... Of course.. is this satire? Imagine thinking a societies' laws don't impact a person's belief. How naive are you? Japan's age of consent is different from California's. (For example). And would you not say Japanese and Californians attitude towards sexualizing young girls is different? Also there's no need for you to try teaching me how consent works I'm perfectly aware. " Guess everybody who ever read some doujinshi with lolis are equal to Epstein.' Ahh yes the infamous 'I haVE NoTHIGN eLSE To sUpport My ARGUment TIme FoR RiiDicuLous OvERstATMENT To DriVE MY PoinT HOmE." I don't see anyone comparing sad neckbeards who fap to underage anime girls in their mom's basement to Epstein. Try again. ""So you think that's the way because government says so?" ... Of course.. is this satire? Imagine thinking a societies' laws don't impact a person's belief. How naive are you?" No it's not a satire. I don't understand, why do you think laws are absolute when they are constantly changing. I mean, it's cool in US to smoke weed even if it's illegal in that place, because you think this should be changed or you don't give a fuck. So of course you grow up in some country with some laws, but it doesn't mean you have to think of them as absolutes. "Japan's age of consent is different from California's. (For example)." And I'm gonna disappoint you, but in Japan strict age of consent is 20, de facto 18. High school cuties are illegal unfortunately. This of course don't stop some of them from doing "compensated dating". Shouldn't all of them be imprinted with their penal code? Then why they are doing this? Because they don't think of laws as of absolutes and break them. " And would you not say Japanese and Californians attitude towards sexualizing young girls is different?" You in US have beauty pageants for 5 years old and making them transgender. You are literally made virtue of sexualizing little boys and pedophila, when it comes to forcing them to think they are girls not boys. Also "young girls" is not very well defined term, do you mean ages 0-17 or something else? Because I don't think 16-17 year old girls are kids. "Also there's no need for you to try teaching me how consent works I'm perfectly aware." Did I? I just mentioned, that even if for some of the world consensual sex with 17 is "rape" that doesn't mean it's rape everywhere. Also sometimes people think that there is literally no distinction between statutory rape and rape/forced rape. "Ahh yes the infamous 'I haVE NoTHIGN eLSE To sUpport My ARGUment TIme FoR RiiDicuLous OvERstATMENT To DriVE MY PoinT HOmE." I don't see anyone comparing sad neckbeards who fap to underage anime girls in their mom's basement to Epstein. Try again." You said, that "male predators" "sexualize lolis". " However, initially my post was directed towards older people (especially predatory men because I see this the most from them) sexualizing 'lolis' or obviously under-aged girls. Its so wild and disturbing. An immediate red flag." So I just pointed you there is difference between thinking sexually about something and being predator. That's like saying I'm predator, because when I'm outside I look at girls and think if they are attractive or not. I can think "she looks attractive in sexual sense" - meaning I sexualize her, but it doesn't mean I'm gonna rape her or anything. I stopped reading after "No it's not a satire." You camping out under this forum is concerning enough. |
|
Yarub said: traed said: It only truly is a taste of your own medicine. Oh yeah, here's the post: Enjoy.Strawman and a personal attack.. way to go... That part you quoted doesn't match the part I replied to which was the first paragraph that should go with. You claimed I said you don't know anything just because you're a Muslim. Clearly that isn't what I said there. I was countering your religious high horse attitude on shirk with pure facts to give you a reason to question your stance yourself. |
| Here are my “illegal opinions”: >All recreational drugs should be legal... And no, I don’t want to do cocaine or heroin, but telling humans they can’t do this or that with their own bodies is fucking stupid. >Prostitution should be legal...18+ of course Same thing as above, STOP telling humans what they can and can’t do with their own bodies! >Assisted Suicide should be legal Once again, same as above. |
traed said: I don't even understand that first paragrpah.Yarub said: It only truly is a taste of your own medicine. Oh yeah, here's the post: Enjoy. That part you quoted doesn't match the part I replied to which was the first paragraph that should go with. You claimed I said you don't know anything just because you're a Muslim. Clearly that isn't what I said there. I was countering your religious high horse attitude on shirk with pure facts to give you a reason to question your stance yourself. And those facts you stated were you just assuming that my education is sub-par, even though that's impossible in 2019. So it's very much not facts, it is ad hominem if I ever seen one. Keep dodging. Oh yeah, polytheism still sucks ass because it all either is folklore or just completely fabricated information. I see why you would defend it considering your personality. |
| Unpopular Opinions... >1st Degree murder should be given an automatic DEATH penalty, which should be carried out swiftly, I’d say 1 year tops....furthermore, I do NOT give a shit about “humane deaths” a gunshot to the head is cheap and fast, enough bullshit! >False Accusations should be given HARSH penalties....for example, if you accuse someone of rape, and it was false, your ass is going straight to prison! PLUS, you will be financially responsible to your accuser for any and all financial hardships brought on by your lies! >White Nationalists should be deported from America to Europe since they’re so desperate to be with their “people” America has NEVER belonged to one race...let fucking Europe deal with them! >Politicians should have a certain level of Academic standards in order to even run...YES, I’m calling on actual litmus test on these mother fuckers! I guarantee you this would’ve prevented Trump. |
Yarub said: traed said: I don't even understand that first paragrpah.That part you quoted doesn't match the part I replied to which was the first paragraph that should go with. You claimed I said you don't know anything just because you're a Muslim. Clearly that isn't what I said there. I was countering your religious high horse attitude on shirk with pure facts to give you a reason to question your stance yourself. And those facts you stated were you just assuming that my education is sub-par, even though that's impossible in 2019. So it's very much not facts, it is ad hominem if I ever seen one. Keep dodging. Oh yeah, polytheism still sucks ass because it all either is folklore or just completely fabricated information. I see why you would defend it considering your personality. I said EITHER your education in sciences is poor (which I mean on certain topics) OR you haven't taken notice to the parts of the Quran that blatantly are contradictory to science since at least one of these has to be true for you to claim the Quran is totally scientifically accurate as you have multiple times in the past. That's all there is to it. The lore at times have meaning in it and there also were rituals among other things so it's not lacking in being complete religions. Jinn were depicted in pre-Islamic times and are thus part of Arab folklore. Mohammad's donkey Yafur there is a Hadith where it's able to talk if I recall. Then there is the Burak Muhammad rode to heaven on which easily could be classified as a mythological creature. This all sure fits the framework of folklore and mythology so it would be silly of you to use folklore and mythology as a reason to suggest polytheism "sucks ass" compaired to monotheism. Several rituals in Islam were taken from Arab pagan rituals as you should already be aware. |
--ALEX-- said: wtf? No thanks, we have our own crazies to contend with. What do you mean just ship them to Europe? Did you even think about this once lmao>White Nationalists should be deported from America to Europe since they’re so desperate to be with their “people” America has NEVER belonged to one race...let fucking Europe deal with them! |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
traed said: You do realise that you're contradicting yourself. You clearly said I wasn't taught anything accurately, so by extension I know nothing accurately. Don't twist the context to your favour.Yarub said: I don't even understand that first paragrpah. And those facts you stated were you just assuming that my education is sub-par, even though that's impossible in 2019. So it's very much not facts, it is ad hominem if I ever seen one. Keep dodging. Oh yeah, polytheism still sucks ass because it all either is folklore or just completely fabricated information. I see why you would defend it considering your personality. I said EITHER your education in sciences is poor (which I mean on certain topics) OR you haven't taken notice to the parts of the Quran that blatantly are contradictory to science since at least one of these has to be true for you to claim the Quran is totally scientifically accurate as you have multiple times in the past. That's all there is to it. The lore at times have meaning in it and there also were rituals among other things so it's not lacking in being complete religions. Jinn were depicted in pre-Islamic times and are thus part of Arab folklore. Mohammad's donkey Yafur there is a Hadith where it's able to talk if I recall. Then there is the Burak Muhammad rode to heaven on which easily could be classified as a mythological creature. This all sure fits the framework of folklore and mythology so it would be silly of you to use folklore and mythology as a reason to suggest polytheism "sucks ass" compaired to monotheism. Several rituals in Islam were taken from Arab pagan rituals as you should already be aware. And where did I say the Quran is scientifically accurate? Dude, you do realise that pre-Islamic times are mainly Christianity/Judaism influenced right? LOOOL. Jinn are Arab variants of demons in Christianity because Islam succeeds Christianity. The fact that Islam borrowed from "pagan" beliefs was that the essence of that belief is a direct correspondent to Abraham's religion which was corrupted into polytheism. The rituals are still attributed to Allah and Abraham, the idols not so much. |
Yarub said: traed said: You do realise that you're contradicting yourself. You clearly said I wasn't taught anything accurately, so by extension I know nothing accurately. Don't twist the context to your favour.I said EITHER your education in sciences is poor (which I mean on certain topics) OR you haven't taken notice to the parts of the Quran that blatantly are contradictory to science since at least one of these has to be true for you to claim the Quran is totally scientifically accurate as you have multiple times in the past. That's all there is to it. The lore at times have meaning in it and there also were rituals among other things so it's not lacking in being complete religions. Jinn were depicted in pre-Islamic times and are thus part of Arab folklore. Mohammad's donkey Yafur there is a Hadith where it's able to talk if I recall. Then there is the Burak Muhammad rode to heaven on which easily could be classified as a mythological creature. This all sure fits the framework of folklore and mythology so it would be silly of you to use folklore and mythology as a reason to suggest polytheism "sucks ass" compaired to monotheism. Several rituals in Islam were taken from Arab pagan rituals as you should already be aware. And where did I say the Quran is scientifically accurate? Dude, you do realise that pre-Islamic times are mainly Christianity/Judaism influenced right? LOOOL. Jinn are Arab variants of demons in Christianity because Islam succeeds Christianity. The fact that Islam borrowed from "pagan" beliefs was that the essence of that belief is a direct correspondent to Abraham's religion which was corrupted into polytheism. The rituals are still attributed to Allah and Abraham, the idols not so much. It's called a hyperbole. It's not meant to be taken at face value. I can't be bothered to find something you said months to years ago. MALs search has always been broken a little where results don't come up that should. I tried and couldn't even find posts you talked about the Quran so not going to bother at the moment. I know it's possible it may have been another user since at some time there was another Muslim user who had a set similar to yours iirc. jinn may have been worshipped as gods and that they although technically equivalent to demons are nothing like demons in Christianity or Judaism. Demons are considered evil embodied and jinn are just neutral being able to be good or bad. Demons do the work of Satan while jinn do things on their own accord. Demons are considered unsavable but jinn are considered to be able to go to paradise just as much as a human can. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-jinn-and-a-demon https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9k7ekv/what-are-jinn-arab-spirits https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/12/how-were-djinn-traditionally-depicted-in-pre-islamic-arabic-myth Abraham is thought to have existed no more than 2000BCE and we know religions existing before then. Also early Judaism started as a henotheistic religion before it was monotheistic. Henotheism is polytheism but only one god worshipped. |
traedJan 1, 2020 6:30 PM
traed said: Are you really trying to dodge this bad? Hyperboles do two things: they either prove a point, or ridicule the subject by reductio ad absurdum. Both scenarios don't lament any truth to your withdrawn claims. It still means what it means at face value.Yarub said: You do realise that you're contradicting yourself. You clearly said I wasn't taught anything accurately, so by extension I know nothing accurately. Don't twist the context to your favour. And where did I say the Quran is scientifically accurate? Dude, you do realise that pre-Islamic times are mainly Christianity/Judaism influenced right? LOOOL. Jinn are Arab variants of demons in Christianity because Islam succeeds Christianity. The fact that Islam borrowed from "pagan" beliefs was that the essence of that belief is a direct correspondent to Abraham's religion which was corrupted into polytheism. The rituals are still attributed to Allah and Abraham, the idols not so much. It's called a hyperbole. It's not meant to be taken at face value. I can't be bothered to find something you said months to years ago. MALs search has always been broken a little where results don't come up that should. I tried and couldn't even find posts you talked about the Quran so not going to bother at the moment. I know it's possible it may have been another user since at some time there was another Muslim user who had a set similar to yours iirc. jinn may have been worshipped as gods and that they although technically equivalent to demons are nothing like demons in Christianity or Judaism. Demons are considered evil embodied and jinn are just neutral being able to be good or bad. Demons do the work of Satan while jinn do things on their own accord. Demons are considered unsavable but jinn are considered to be able to go to paradise just as much as a human can. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-jinn-and-a-demon https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9k7ekv/what-are-jinn-arab-spirits https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/12/how-were-djinn-traditionally-depicted-in-pre-islamic-arabic-myth Abraham is thought to have existed no more than 2000BCE and we know religions existing before then. Also early Judaism started as a henotheistic religion before it was monotheistic. Henotheism is polytheism but only one god worshipped. I think it's about time you stop pulling stuff out of your ass and talk for real. I don't think I ever confessed to that statement. And? They still are equivalent to demons. Islam is different than Christianity but the core ideas are there. Your point being? What does the existence of religions before Abraham has to do with anything? Not every religion is reducible to another primitive religion because that would be an infinite regression. I thought you hated infinite beginnings? Your argument about Judaism holds no weight. Islam contests that Judaism and Christianity were corrupted into subtle polytheism and that claim still stands pretty much true. This discredits whatever Christianity and Judaism have to do about faith. |
Yarub said: traed said: Are you really trying to dodge this bad? Hyperboles do two things: they either prove a point, or ridicule the subject by reductio ad absurdum. Both scenarios don't lament any truth to your withdrawn claims. It still means what it means at face value.It's called a hyperbole. It's not meant to be taken at face value. I can't be bothered to find something you said months to years ago. MALs search has always been broken a little where results don't come up that should. I tried and couldn't even find posts you talked about the Quran so not going to bother at the moment. I know it's possible it may have been another user since at some time there was another Muslim user who had a set similar to yours iirc. jinn may have been worshipped as gods and that they although technically equivalent to demons are nothing like demons in Christianity or Judaism. Demons are considered evil embodied and jinn are just neutral being able to be good or bad. Demons do the work of Satan while jinn do things on their own accord. Demons are considered unsavable but jinn are considered to be able to go to paradise just as much as a human can. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-jinn-and-a-demon https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9k7ekv/what-are-jinn-arab-spirits https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/12/how-were-djinn-traditionally-depicted-in-pre-islamic-arabic-myth Abraham is thought to have existed no more than 2000BCE and we know religions existing before then. Also early Judaism started as a henotheistic religion before it was monotheistic. Henotheism is polytheism but only one god worshipped. I think it's about time you stop pulling stuff out of your ass and talk for real. I don't think I ever confessed to that statement. And? They still are equivalent to demons. Islam is different than Christianity but the core ideas are there. Your point being? What does the existence of religions before Abraham has to do with anything? Not every religion is reducible to another primitive religion because that would be an infinite regression. Your argument about Judaism holds no weight. Islam contests that Judaism and Christianity were corrupted into subtle polytheism and that claim still stands pretty much true. This discredits whatever Christianity and Judaism have to do about faith. It's just a way of phrasing things. I'm not dodging anything. I would just say you were right if you were but to say that would mean I have to lie to you. You're grasping at straws for something anyone who follows this conversation can see isn't there. Then if you say you never said that nor would say it then this is to indirectly admit the Quran is proven to contain some scientifically false information then it goes to show the Quran is not 100% truth and one would have reason to question other parts of it as well. This was my point all along anyway including that old post you dug up that you misinterpreted. I wouldn't really have said anything to begin with if it weren't for your spiteful remarks along side double standards. . I already explained my point. Reread my last two posts. You're holding double standards is the point. If folklore is something to ridicule then you should ridicule Islamic and Arab folklore equally and jinn cross over between both so that was an example. If one were to only accept Islamic viewpoints and not a greater pool of information that would be a rigged system for open discussion. The thing with corruption of information is without being corrected by a source of proper info the wrong information gets further and further from the truth. So it should be that prior to a source of knowledge a prophet correct information should not appear. The Jews worship Yahweh and before them Israelites before them also worshipped a god named Yahweh in the pantheon of gods was worshipped. Another name for God in Judaism is El, also the name of a different Babylonian god. Zoroastrianism predates the monotheism in Islam, Christianity, and even possibly Judaism. Zoroastrianism has a duality to it with it's Satan (or Shaytan) like figure parallel to it's god. |
| decriminalize most illegal drugs or make more illegal drugs undergo clinical trials for medical purposes |
| I've said this numerous times on many different forums. The AOC laws do not make any sense. Why are we treating people who are well past the age that puberty begins, have fully developed bodies, and of whom the majority are already sexually active, driving cars, drinking alcohol, employed in jobs, or experimenting with drugs as if they are "children?" Last I remember, when I was a child, I had no desire to bone girls, get a job, drive a car, drink booze, or smoke weed. Can't say any of that is the case when it comes to my 15 year old self. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: I've said this numerous times on many different forums. The AOC laws do not make any sense. Why are we treating people who are well past the age that puberty begins, have fully developed bodies, and of whom the majority are already sexually active, driving cars, drinking alcohol, employed in jobs, or experimenting with drugs as if they are "children?" Last I remember, when I was a child, I had no desire to bone girls, get a job, drive a car, drink booze, or smoke weed. Can't say any of that is the case when it comes to my 15 year old self. what is the age of consent for you then? its not just biologically ready but family ready you cannot expect teenagers that are still in school to start a family since that will be a burden to the government social budget too so some government raise the age of consent high |
deg said: Ryuk9428 said: I've said this numerous times on many different forums. The AOC laws do not make any sense. Why are we treating people who are well past the age that puberty begins, have fully developed bodies, and of whom the majority are already sexually active, driving cars, drinking alcohol, employed in jobs, or experimenting with drugs as if they are "children?" Last I remember, when I was a child, I had no desire to bone girls, get a job, drive a car, drink booze, or smoke weed. Can't say any of that is the case when it comes to my 15 year old self. what is the age of consent for you then? its not just biologically ready but family ready you cannot expect teenagers that are still in school to start a family since that will be a burden to the government social budget too so some government raise the age of consent high Given the availability of birth control, abortion, and adoption, if you still choose to raise a child, you made that choice for yourself. If you are somebody who thinks birth control is bad because sex should be for procreation purposes only, then you shouldn't have had sex. If you think birth control is fine, but abortion is killing a baby and the condom broke, then that's why moms give babies up for adoption. There are options available in today's world to have sex recreationally and not raise children as a result of it. Even if the family argument was true though, that doesn't justify the way people act as if anybody who finds 16 or 17 year old girls sexually attractive is a pedophile. I'd say any age of consent higher than 15 makes absolutely no sense. 13 or 14 are the transition years so it is much more murky and difficult to tell so I think individual cases should be taken into consideration more. A 14 year old banging his teacher for example is probably perfectly consensual and there's no need to ruin the woman's life over that but there might still be some cases involving unusually immature people at that age. 12 is definitely too young. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: deg said: what is the age of consent for you then? its not just biologically ready but family ready you cannot expect teenagers that are still in school to start a family since that will be a burden to the government social budget too so some government raise the age of consent high Given the availability of birth control, abortion, and adoption, if you still choose to raise a child, you made that choice for yourself. If you are somebody who thinks birth control is bad because sex should be for procreation purposes only, then you shouldn't have had sex. If you think birth control is fine, but abortion is killing a baby and the condom broke, then that's why moms give babies up for adoption. There are options available in today's world to have sex recreationally and not raise children as a result of it. Even if the family argument was true though, that doesn't justify the way people act as if anybody who finds 16 or 17 year old girls sexually attractive is a pedophile. I'd say any age of consent higher than 15 makes absolutely no sense. 13 or 14 are the transition years so it is much more murky and difficult to tell so I think individual cases should be taken into consideration more. A 14 year old banging his teacher for example is probably perfectly consensual and there's no need to ruin the woman's life over that but there might still be some cases involving unusually immature people at that age. 12 is definitely too young. choice is fine and all but we are talking about teenage years here when raging hormones makes this teens impulsive a lot of times so 18 to 20 is my bet for age of consent when those raging hormones are not as problematic for most of them |
Peaceful_Critic said: Ryuk9428 said: Most people don't even lose their virginity until 17 though(https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/s.htm). They aren't sexually active at 15. The majority get their jobs at 16(https://www.creditloan.com/blog/entering-into-employment/), which makes sense as that's the legal driving age. Typically, you'll want a child that can drive to and from work. I've said this numerous times on many different forums. The AOC laws do not make any sense. Why are we treating people who are well past the age that puberty begins, have fully developed bodies, and of whom the majority are already sexually active, driving cars, drinking alcohol, employed in jobs, or experimenting with drugs as if they are "children?" Last I remember, when I was a child, I had no desire to bone girls, get a job, drive a car, drink booze, or smoke weed. Can't say any of that is the case when it comes to my 15 year old self. You might've done it, and a lot of teens may have done drugs as well, but it wouldn't have been legal. The age in order of what you brought up is 16, 21, and 18. Also, generally, a lot of jobs hire 16+ or prefer to since 14-15-year-olds have a strict limit on how many hours they can work and you aren't legally allowed to do a lot of jobs as the government mandates(https://www.youthrules.gov/know-the-limits/14-15.htm). As for the jobs, you can work, they can legally give you a new, lower minimum wage in the 1st 3 months of working. So in the workplace, younger teens are treated like a child on training wheels. You weren't really treated like an adult in that aspect either. I've found a lot of sex statistics to be difficult to figure out the accuracy of. I've seen enough surveys about sex that couldn't possibly be true to doubt the exact percentages of pretty much all of them. And they almost always seem to underestimate the level of sexual activity going on instead of overestimate. Let's look at this one for example saying that 21% of 16-17 year old and 14% of 18-19 year old guys have never masturbated. https://www.dailydot.com/wp-content/uploads/c84/3e/infographic_2.png This simply can't be possible, I've never encountered a single guy in my entire life, past the age of 14 who claims to have never masturbated. And that's including a friend of mine who claims to be currently trying nofap which is already a fringe type of thing. Given that I've gotten essentially survey data from dozens of guys back when I was in high school on how often they masturbated though, it would be statistically impossible for 14-21% of guys in the 16-19 age range to have never masturbated and for me as well as every guy I know never having met a guy who never masturbated. These statistics indicate that 1 out of 5 guys I met who are 16 or 17 should have never jerked off once in their life. And on a further note, I don't think its possible for a guy going through puberty to not masturbate. This isn't a matter of some choice people have. When a guy is in his mid 20s or 30s or something like that, it could be possible. But its impossible for a 15 year old guy to resist, the urge is obscenely powerful at that age, your balls actually physically hurt if you don't jerk off. And as a matter of experience, I'd say somewhere between 16.1-16.5 is probably the average age people lose their virginity and that's accounting for the idea that my school was hornier than usual because at my school practically everybody had lost their virginity by the time they were 17 years old. I'd actually say, among the girls that 35-40% had had sex by the time they got to high school in general but a lot of it was with other girls so among the guys it was more like 15%. Maybe at 16, most teenagers are not involved in all five of those things, but most teenagers are involved in some mixture of those five things. And at 15, they are preparing to do so and most are desperately itching to do them if they haven't already. Doing illegal things is an adult thing to do though whether people want to think of it that way or not. Doing something illegal indicates that your parents' authority is not powerful enough to prevent you from doing it and the government has to make laws preventing it. The government doesn't make laws sending toddlers into time out because parents are seen as being powerful enough to control them by themselves. But teenagers are considered to be independent enough that governmental laws have to essentially force them to behave in a manner more similar to children than to adults, which indicates that this is trying to control what would be natural behavior. If teenagers were to behave like we did in prehistoric times where we didn't have laws against these sorts of things, they'd probably almost all be sexually active at like 14. |
Ryuk9428Jan 2, 2020 10:27 AM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Peaceful_Critic said: @Ryuk9428 More religious people are against masturbation as a concept and find it sinful, so those guys could very well not be doing it for that reason. Your experience was at a highly sexual school, so of course, you wouldn't personally know anyone who didn't. That would only be natural. However, I think it's absurd to claim it is impossible. No matter how strong urges are, it's very possible to overcome them. On top of that, collectively, a lot of people's experience outvalues the experience of 1. Mostly because your own experience is more limited against other people and you could be just as equally bias. Even going by that statistic, it does make sense why you wouldn't know any man that didn't, because 79-86% of guys had. This with what your life was like only makes it even more possible that you wouldn't know anyone. 79% is still relatively high and takes up an overwhelming majority of guys. Not to mention, I don't think every guy you met had told you if they had or not. I think most of that 20% is coming from highly religious circles where it is regarded as a sin or theorist who thinks of it as unhealthy. Your prediction on what you think is the average age isn't at all off from the reality, so I really don't think you should dismiss that statistic. The beginning of the 17th year isn't that different from the middle of the 16th year. Not that it matters, as it doesn't disprove the point, that 15-year-olds aren't sexually active. I'd actually say, among the girls that 35-40% had had sex by the time they got to high school in general but a lot of it was with other girls so among the guys it was more like 15%. Ehhhh, no, probably not. For girls, it is more socially acceptable to be more prudish about sex(on top of having less of a sex drive) and generally, the 1st time hurts for a lot of girls, so they aren't itching to do it. I especially disagree with the lesbian part, as the overwhelming majority of people are hetero(1.1% of girls to be exact). Maybe in the case of drugs and especially, weed, but not driving or jobs, I'll imagine. Mostly because work isn't fun and driving without even getting a license is beyond stupid and reckless that I can't imagine most teens attempting it. Juvey is specifically created to punish children going too far, who broke the laws. Jail is an adult thing, and unless what the teen did was a serious crime like murder, they aren't treated as an adult in the illegal actions they do. Teens have a lot more leeway. Are they treated like children in that regard? Not quite, but they are in that ground middle area of adult and child. I've talked to highly religious people before though, including the ones who told me they consider masturbation a sin who eventually confess to me that they masturbate too. A lot of highly religious people masturbate a lot in-fact. From what I've seen, regardless of what they say, religious people are not a whole lot better at following rules against sexuality than secular people are. The highly religious population might be claiming that they don't masturbate on these surveys, but I seriously doubt that they actually don't. I don't think you quite comprehend how powerful the urge actually is. I think it would be easier for a heroin addict to stop themselves from shooting up than it is for a 15 year old to stop themselves from masturbating. I do know people who tried not to masturbate in their teen years but I don't know anybody who actually managed to not do it. You are right that most 15 year olds have not had sex. But given how many 15 year olds badly want it, and how many of them are actively trying to have sex whether they actually manage to do it or not, I'd say its safe to say that 15 year olds are capable of consent. Once people are 16, most do manage to have sex at some point. Going into the female vs male rates. The truth is that women have way way way more access to sex then males do. Its basically a trend right now for girls to experiment with bisexuality or lesbian activities. I can't tell you how many girls I know who claimed to be a lesbian for a little while before saying they aren't really and start dating guys. So I agree that lesbianism is not really all that common, but it doesn't mean that girl on girl sex isn't. From what I saw, if a girl lost her virginity relatively early, like at 13 or 14, over half the time it happened it was with another girl. And at my school, there was a huge difference in how many 15 year old girls had some sexual experience vs how many 15 year old guys do. That's another reason I don't trust these statistics is because I've seen that girls, on a overwhelming basis, lose their virginity earlier than guys do. I mentioned that 75-80% of the students at my school lost their virginity by the time they were 17, but that's because it took awhile for the guys to catch up. Among the girls, something like 70% had already lost their virginity by the time they were 16, but among the guys it was only 30%. In the high school years, the difference between sexual experience in girls vs guys is absolutely massive. I agree that teenagers are somewhere in the middle area between adult and child. But I also think college students are in that middle area, and I think even a lot of people in their mid 20s could be considered in that middle area. So for the most part, I'd say people in their mid teens (15-17 range) are closer to adulthood than they are to childhood. A lot of people I know actually did drive or get jobs as soon as they could. They wanted to go where they wanted and make their own money so they could buy whatever they wanted. Its a general part of freedom and independence. They are probably not itching to work in of itself, but they are itching to have their own money. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Peaceful_Critic said: @Ryuk9428 You are saying all of this out of your own personal experience. You might be describing the urge as powerful because you have a very high sex drive in comparison to most people, I'll imagine. I remember you claiming how not having a girl touch you can make you break down and you describing sex as a physical need or skin hunger. Only to then have Traed reply saying how you are an addict(implying it was abnormal). So when you say it's impossible because it is physically painful, I am a bit skeptical because it seems like something that would be out of the ordinary. I'm also pretty inclined to believe that there is a sizeable group in the world who don't masturbate. I mean depression has been raising and that can possibly cause people to lose interest in it all together. Not to mention, there are pages dedicated to telling those highly religious people how not to and the tricks would help them not give in to the urges. Yes, they are and I think they should have sex with people their own age who aren't inherently more powerful than them due to the government giving one partner all the rights and not the other. They do, but females aren't as interested in sex, generally. I don't think lesbian sexual activities are as prevalent as you believe. If only 1% is even saying they are one, then why would they be so much more inclined to experiment with them as their first time? I believe people tend to value stuff like their 1st time, so I have a hard time imagining those who would do their 1st with no sexual feelings towards their partner. On top of that, for girls virginity is in a lot of cases are seen as more valuable, therefore, there's an incentive to do it at a later age. Meanwhile, guys have the opposite incentive where being seen as a virgin is an insult. Therefore, I think the statistics saying guys experience it earlier would be more likely than what you are claiming. I meant legally more than experience or personality-wise. Are mid-teens closer to adulthood? Of course, but really I would still separate teens as their own thing from even college students. Yeah, that makes sense, if you put it that way. You made a good point. I mean, he is not wrong, unless this guys who thought this are wrong:  |
| As an disgusting thing deemed by moderation team, I am now purged from this place. |
| Hitler did nothing wrong. JoJo's is overrated. |
Read Toriko!  |
| @HungryForQuality If a heroin addict holds out for a long enough period, the withdrawal symptoms will subside. That doesn't happen to a teenager to tries not to masturbate, instead when you don't masturbate, they just get worse and worse. But the point is, 14-21% is a lot of fucking people to not be masturbating. There simply is no way that is true. We do not have the same statistical numbers of teenagers not masturbating as we have college students abstaining from alcohol. You don't have a legitimate choice not to masturbate when you're a teenager. You might as well say I just don't shit voluntarily. If you do that eventually your body is just gonna make you shit your pants. What person is willing to go through that over and over again? @Shirakawa_Megumi Some of it is female students having sex with older students. I'd say that girls are far more likely to have sex with somebody older than themselves than the guys are which is a major reason why so many girls have sex at earlier ages than the guys do, but another reason is because of the prevalence of lesbian experimentation. Like I mentioned, I would say among the girls I knew who claimed they had sex at the age of 14 or younger, at least half of them said they did it with another girl. Furthermore, most of the guys who have told me they had sex at 13 or 14 did not do it with a girl their own age either. The vast majority of cases I hear of 13 or 14 year old guys getting sex, its from a high school aged girl with a smaller minority being from their older teachers. If we make it so there are serious consequences for older people having sex with younger people, the boys are gonna get fucked over because it is extremely difficult for 13/14 year old boys to seduce girls their own age. They pretty much need the confidence of an older girl in order to do it. @Peaceful_Critic My sex drive being high results in me needing it more frequently, but most humans have some level of latent need for it to the point where I think there's something wrong with a person if puberty doesn't result in needing to masturbate. It indicates that there's dangerously low hormonal levels. In the first world context it could only be a result of extreme, chronic stress and in the third world context it might be a result of malnutrition. In some historical environments where long term famine or food shortages occurred, we've unearthed skeletons of 25 year olds who had still not reached puberty. Now those 25 year olds, I could believe they have never masturbated. But for a healthy teenager going through puberty, it seems impossible. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but if a guy doesn't masturbate he will have nocturnal emissions, being his body will give him an orgasm and an ejaculation while he is sleeping. Almost nobody has wet dreams after the age of 13 or 14 though because people regularly masturbate. I'm sure they do have a lot of instructions and tricks for how to not masturbate because its known to be extremely difficult. The only way to really not masturbate is to live a lifestyle so unhealthy you are essentially killing yourself. So if you were to develop a major tobacco addiction for example, take on an extreme amount of stress, or become an alcoholic, it will reduce your sex drive to the point where it might be possible not to masturbate. Even in this case, however, from what I've heard those things make much more of an impact on older adults. Teenagers largely are not effected by it. If a teenager is being effected by it, then there is something really seriously wrong. And keep in mind, that trying to limit masturbation is very different from never having done it. Do I believe there's plenty of people, for whatever reason trying not to masturbate as much as they normally would, yeah I do. But I don't believe any of those people were successful at never having masturbated ever. 1% of girls are actual, biological lesbians, but the number of girls who claim to have experienced same sex sexual activity is way way way higher. Even among girls who identify as heterosexual, 12.6% of them said they had had sex with another girl. Another study they linked to from YouGov claims an even higher percentage of 15% of heterosexual girls claiming to have had sex with another girl. And this is not including any of the over 30% of Americans under the age of 30 now who identify somewhere along the bisexuality spectrum. Not only that, but women are twice as likely to identify as bisexual than men are. https://www.womenshealthmag.com/sex-and-love/a19940327/straight-women-who-sleep-with-women/ This says that 76-86% of bisexual girls have slept with another girl. https://contexts.org/blog/womens-sexual-orientation-and-sexual-behavior-how-well-do-they-match/ So if we were to assume the lowest numbers possible, this would mean counting bisexual and lesbian girls only, 23.5% of girls have had sex with another girl. Factoring in the lowest numbers possible for the heterosexual girls, that number rises to 30%. Meaning, in the lowest numbers possible, we still have 30% of girls under 30 having sex with other girls. If we were to use the highest numbers possible, assuming 40% of under 30 girls identify as bisexual it comes out to 35.5% of girls having had sex with other girls in the bisexual and lesbian categories and 10.5% in the heterosexual category. What this means, is that the percentage of girls who have slept with another girl is somewhere between 30-46.5%. I imagine this is being lowered dramatically by religious communities though where bisexual experimentation isn't encouraged, at my school, I'd say you could easily raise that number to 50% of the girls there having sex with another girl by the time they graduated from high school. Levels of bisexual experimentation among girls in non-religious schools are extremely high. A lot of high school girls these days say that the whole saving your virginity concept is sexist. Among the ones who did want to save their virginity they just made weird work arounds to the definition. Like they would say oral sex, anal sex, or lesbian sex "doesn't count" and do just about everything except for vaginal penetration. You'd have these girls who had literally slept with like ten people claiming they were virgins just because they'd never been penetrated. And when I say someone is sexually active, I include the entire range of sexual activities, not just penetration. I include people who engage in dry humping, making out, and oral sex to be "sexually active." |
Ryuk9428Jan 3, 2020 12:17 AM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Peaceful_Critic said: @Ryuk9428 I mean, not masturbating ever, has to be possible. It takes conscious thought to touch yourself which makes it very possible to not do it. Urges persuade people to do something, it doesn't force them. For people with lower sex drives, these urges would be considerably lower than yours and therefore a lot easier not to do it. Having a lower sex drive makes you automatically less interest in that stuff which would potentially affect how much one does it and the severity. I mean, people aren't skeptical about the girls not doing it nearly as much as guys despite the fact the girls stated that they did it a lot less. Why? Because not only is the sex drive lower, it is caused by more what is happening than the private parts being shown (on average). As a girl, I can tell you it's very possible to be a healthy teen and not feel the need to do it because my sex drive is naturally lower which makes the urge to do it close to none(and harder to bring on in the first place). Oh, and while I am on the subject, another thing that has been raising is diabetes and that causes a loss of desire for it for both males and females(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26382159). Also, the fatigue thing also helps explain it. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but if a guy doesn't masturbate he will have nocturnal emissions, being his body will give him an orgasm and an ejaculation while he is sleeping. Almost nobody has wet dreams after the age of 13 or 14 though because people regularly masturbate. That isn't really relevant as it doesn't disprove the possibility of a guy not masturbating. It explains what the body does when it doesn't happen. Lesbian jokes for females is typically what is bringing up that number so much(so only 86% or 6 girls for every 7 of hereto girls never had any sexual contact with the same sex which is still the large majority). As any sexual contact could be included such as hitting the butt or kissing because of a dare or anything accidental. Overall, the first study linked said 17.4% of girls had same-sex contact(Almost three times as many women (17.4%) reported any same-sex contact in their lifetime compared with men (6.2%) aged 18–44) The reason why the 50% is so inaccurate is that you aren't thinking of the 86% of bisexual girls as an insignificant number as would be accurate. 5.5% of 86% of the population of girls isn't that much still. Even the highest number possible would only bring that number up only a bit. This is also why 23.5% is still way too much even if you would've settled there as your final answer. I mean, the study said 92.3% of women are heterosexual which leaves just 7.7% as others (Bi, Homosexual, and Unanwswered). That's such a small amount that it only affected the base of 12% a bit more, despite the majority having same-sex contact when categorized under every "other". It wasn't really my concept. I was just seeing the trends of the more male-centered communities valuing that trait in girls and a place where having a lot of partners is seen as slut and whore which were deemed insults. Even other girls don't seem to like others who sleep around a lot. Meaning there's socially more of an incentive for girls to not sleep around with 10 people compared to guys where the complete opposite case is true. Virgin is used as an insult to guys in female spaces and disapproved of by other guys. "Saving your virginity" till marriage might be seen as sexist, but I don't think valuing the 1st time is looked down upon by a lot of high school girls. Defining virginity as penetration is pretty old school though. I have met guys who don't believe girls who say they don't masturbate. I will say, I do think most girls who say they don't masturbate are lying about it too. But the reason why, there is a possibility that a tiny sliver of girls don't, is because you don't have balls that get backed up with semen if you don't masturbate. This is an important distinction because the desire to masturbate frequently for girls with high sex drives, really is more akin to a drug addiction. Its a chemical or emotion the brain has come to crave. Whereas the desire to masturbate frequently for guys is more akin to having to pee a lot. That may overlap with a psychological cravings because it is so pleasurable in comparison to peeing. But in the beginning stages of puberty, it really is more like peeing in the sense that you have to do it at some point. Your body will practically torture you and if you still don't do it, it will just make you ejaculate in your sleep. This study saying 21% of male teenagers don't masturbate is essentially acting like 21% of 16-17 year olds have monk-like levels of self-discipline that most people don't even have in their middle aged years. 80% of high school teenagers will try alcohol by the time they graduate, (https://kidshealth.org/en/teens/alcohol.html) backed up by (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/survey-reveals-shocking-levels-of-teen-drinking-drug-abuse/) and having the self-discipline to not try alcohol is on several orders of magnitude easier than having the self-discipline to put yourself through torture day after day waiting until your body ejaculates in your sleep instead of just taking it into your own hands (literally). I find it extremely difficult to believe that just as many teenagers avoid alcohol as avoid masturbation. Even at my wild school, I knew people who legitimately never tried alcohol, I didn't meet a single person who claimed they didn't masturbate that didn't later confess that they were lying. "Estimates of sexual behaviors, sexual attraction, and sexual orientation among women and men aged 18–44 were generally similar between the 2011–2013 and 2006–2010 NSFG. However, VLJQL¿FDQWO\KLJKHUSHUFHQWDJHVRI women in the 2011–2013 NSFG reported ever having had same-sex sexual contact (17.4%) compared with women in the 2006–2010 NSFG (14.2%), and higher percentages of women (5.5%) and men (2.0%) in the 2011–2013 NSFG said they were bisexual compared with women (3.9%) and men (1.2%) in the 2006–2010 NSFG (6)." The explosion of lesbian experimentation has only really started in the past 10 years. It has been slowly growing since 2000 but it really took off sometime in the early 2010s. This study looked at women aged 18-44 which is an extremely broad age range and in 2011-2013, would have mostly included women who were too old to have experienced the giant spike in same sex sexual activity among women. What this study does show, however, is that a difference of a few years increased the numbers reporting same sex sexual activity by nearly 20%. I'm willing to bet though that if you narrowed the age range specifically to women aged 18-25 and looked at more recent stats from say, 2016-2018. You'd find significantly higher numbers of women claiming same sex sexual activity. This is despite the fact that I'm pretty sure that there's something in the methodology of government studies that requires them to under-report statistics like these. Studies usually abide by the idea that under-reporting is better than over-reporting. High school environments don't tend to be very concerned with whether someone is a slut. If anything, I'd say there's much more of a stigma towards being a prude in high school than being a slut. Also, like I said, there's a lot of girls who claim everything outside of vaginal penetration "doesn't count" so it allows them to essentially say it wasn't actually their first time even though it was. I actually was in a debate last year with three people. There was a conversation going on between me, one other guy, and a girl. She said something about her being a virgin, and then the other guy said "by Ryuk's definition you're not." And she asked what that meant, and I said "I consider all sex to be sex, so that includes oral sex that was performed on you." And she replied with something like "but that would mean pretty much nobody is a virgin" and I said "exactly, I think hardly anybody is at this age." I see way more young people who think oral sex "doesn't count" than older adults who do. My parents generation thinks that oral sex is pretty much the same as intercourse. The idea that oral sex isn't sex only really arose after Bill Clinton claimed that he didn't actually have an affair because it was oral. Nowadays though, pretty much everyone our age I talk to thinks somebody who received a blowjob or a girl who got eaten out still counts as a virgin which makes absolutely no sense to me at all. But, this is how people do sexual stuff while still claiming their first time was special. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: The same reason we don't allow them to sign contracts, they're easy as fuck to manipulate. Sadly, unlike signing contracts, having sex can't really wait and banning it doesn't work at all, so the only thing we can do is restrict it in a manner that at least wont expose them to the worst that the world of sexuality has to offer. I've said this numerous times on many different forums. The AOC laws do not make any sense. Why are we treating people who are well past the age that puberty begins, have fully developed bodies, and of whom the majority are already sexually active, driving cars, drinking alcohol, employed in jobs, or experimenting with drugs as if they are "children?" Last I remember, when I was a child, I had no desire to bone girls, get a job, drive a car, drink booze, or smoke weed. Can't say any of that is the case when it comes to my 15 year old self. In other words, if you let adults screw around with them the end result is going to be... well. There's gonna be a lot of sexual exploitation. Better to just avoid that mess, let them have their first sexual experiences with people that are just as dumb as them and most likely not fucked in the head (yet), and be done with it. AOC is basically the tutorial-level and when you're done with it it's like "now good luck with the real shit". But I believe we've had this argument before and it ended with you disagreeing on the basis that "no, kids aren't easy to manipulate at all because they're actually very smart". Am I remembering this right? |
Railey2Jan 3, 2020 3:46 PM
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
Railey2 said: Ryuk9428 said: The same reason we don't allow them to sign contracts, they're easy as fuck to manipulate. Sadly, unlike signing contracts, having sex can't really wait and banning it doesn't work at all, so the only thing we can do is restrict it in a manner that at least wont expose them to the worst that the world of sexuality has to offer. I've said this numerous times on many different forums. The AOC laws do not make any sense. Why are we treating people who are well past the age that puberty begins, have fully developed bodies, and of whom the majority are already sexually active, driving cars, drinking alcohol, employed in jobs, or experimenting with drugs as if they are "children?" Last I remember, when I was a child, I had no desire to bone girls, get a job, drive a car, drink booze, or smoke weed. Can't say any of that is the case when it comes to my 15 year old self. In other words, if you let adults screw around with them the end result is going to be... well. There's gonna be a lot of sexual exploitation. Better to just avoid that mess, let them have their first sexual experiences with people that are just as dumb as them and most likely not fucked in the head (yet), and be done with it. AOC is basically the tutorial-level and when you're done with it it's like "now good luck with the real shit". But I believe we've had this argument before and it ended with you disagreeing on the basis that "no, kids aren't easy to manipulate at all because they're actually very smart". Am I remembering this right? I believe you may be talking about another person. I think hardly any humans are "very smart," teenagers or adults. But I don't see much difference in how smart teenagers are compared to adults. The only difference I really see is that teenagers have a lot more hormones. If we were actually to move to the entire system I think is best though, pretty much all dating and relationships would go through the parents anyway regardless of the person's age. I think our current system of expecting people to approach each other and decide how to date each other on their own is seriously flawed and would rather have relationships decided by old fashioned matchmaking where you ask your mom to put in a good word with the neighbor's daughter and the two moms set you up. I don't think 20 year olds can really make any better decisions than 16 year olds can. No parent would allow their son or daughter to date somebody who was sketchy anyway so people would be well protected regardless of their age. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
More topics from this board
» What type of physical affection do you crave/Fantasize the most about?Thy-Veseveia - Yesterday |
16 |
by Adverrito
»»
35 seconds ago |
|
» What Compliment Do You Hear Most Often?ParisPlayboy01 - 36 minutes ago |
5 |
by ParisPlayboy01
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Biggest life hot takes? ( 1 2 3 )Rabnawaz2 - Jun 15 |
119 |
by JaniSIr
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» Is MAL dying?TsutanaiFuun - Today |
16 |
by W3TFT
»»
46 minutes ago |
|
» The very random (and possibly useless) knowledge thread ( 1 2 )DigiCat - May 22 |
51 |
by Absurdo_N
»»
50 minutes ago |