Oh, Matty. Have you been a naughty boy?

[laughing dog]

What Loren seems to miss that anyone who is unable to resist fucking a “babyfaced” partner is free to do open themselves up to possible rape charges.

 

[Derec]

And what you seem to miss that it is ridiculous to consider something like that anywhere in the neighborhood of "rape". This attitude just shows that American puritanism is also alive on the Left.

 

[Arctish]

And what you seem to miss that it is ridiculous to consider something like that anywhere in the neighborhood of "rape". This attitude just shows that American puritanism is also alive on the Left.

What do you call the penetrative sex acts performed by Jerry Sandusky on "babyfaced" males, aka boys? If it wasn't rape, what was it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And what you seem to miss that it is ridiculous to consider something like that anywhere in the neighborhood of "rape". This attitude just shows that American puritanism is also alive on the Left.

Bullshit! Any number of conservative fathers would get enraged over the idea of a 40 year old boinking their 16 year old daughter. They wouldn't call it rape though, you are right. They'd call it target practice.

 

[laughing dog]

And what you seem to miss that it is ridiculous to consider something like that anywhere in the neighborhood of "rape". This attitude just shows that American puritanism is also alive on the Left.

Rape is well understood both legally and morally despite the attempts of misogynists, sadists, NAMBLAists ,and their unwitting dupes.

 

[ZiprHead]

And what you seem to miss that it is ridiculous to consider something like that anywhere in the neighborhood of "rape". This attitude just shows that American puritanism is also alive on the Left.

Rape is well understood both legally and morally despite the attempts of misogynists, sadists, NAMBLAists ,and their unwitting dupes.

Jesus! It sounds like Derec is defending sexual assault! Heaven forbid we call it rape.

Sorry for the Biblical references. I was brought up in a Lutheran home and that part stuck.

 

[Derec]

What do you call the penetrative sex acts performed by Jerry Sandusky on "babyfaced" males, aka boys? If it wasn't rape, what was it?

Sandusky raped boys as young as 10. How do you get from what Loren talked about (and what I was responding to) to anything like what Sandusky was doing just proves my point about puritan streak in the US Left.

 

[Derec]

Bullshit! Any number of conservative fathers would get enraged over the idea of a 40 year old boinking their 16 year old daughter.

In most of the developed world, and a number of US states age of consent is 16.
Consensual sex with somebody 16 or 17 is not at all comparable to rape.

They wouldn't call it rape though, you are right. They'd call it target practice.

Are you now advocating murder?
I would not think many fathers would be thrilled about their 18 year old daughter boinking a 40 year old either. Do you advocate murder in that case too?

 

[Derec]

Rape is well understood both legally and morally

To call consensual sex "rape" is something as far as I know unique to US.
There certainly is no moral equivalence between raping somebody and having consensual sex with them, even if she is 17. Especially if the older partner did not know that the younger one was under 18.
Other developed counties have laws protecting youth. However, hey do set a more reasonable age of consent and they do not pretend that non-rape is rape. It's funny how so-called liberals get medieval on this one issue and will defend US puritan attitudes toward it as the only sensible approach.

despite the attempts of misogynists, sadists, NAMBLAists ,and their unwitting dupes.

The fuck? I am just advocating for a more sensible, and less puritanical approach to all this.
Nothing "misogynist", "saidst" or "NAMBLAist" about anything I wrote.

And it should apply to women too, of course, so your accusation of "misogyny" is even more baffling than your usual hot takes.
If a woman has consensual sex with somebody who is 17, I do not think she is a "rapist" either. And if the teen lied about his age and told her he was 18 I do not think she did anything wrong whatsoever.

People can look older than younger than the age they are. What are you people advocating? Carding all potential sex partners? Even IDs can be faked.

 

[Derec]

Jesus! It sounds like Derec is defending sexual assault! Heaven forbid we call it rape.

No, I am saying that consensual sex in not rape or sexual assault.

While some here (laughing dog, Patooka) seem to think it's rape (and indeed like raping 10 year olds according to Arctish) if you have consensual sex with somebody young-looking even if they are over 18.

 

[Patooka]

In most of the developed world, and a number of US states age of consent is 16.
Consensual sex with somebody 16 or 17 is not at all comparable to rape.

In most of the developed world, they understand 16 year olds be fucking. Now do you think age of consent for that age was designed for them, or middle aged guys like you and I? Sorry in advance if I'm stealing some of your moves.

Are you now advocating murder?

He wasn't. Thank god you don't understand because if you did I wouldn't know which law enforcement agency I'd have to notify.

I would not think many fathers would be thrilled about their 18 year old daughter boinking a 40 year old either. Do you advocate murder in that case too?

This may be construed as a personal attack but it isn't - Derec, those years are gone man. They are not coming back. Please act your age. Don't run into the wrong Dad.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bullshit! Any number of conservative fathers would get enraged over the idea of a 40 year old boinking their 16 year old daughter.

In most of the developed world, and a number of US states age of consent is 16.
Consensual sex with somebody 16 or 17 is not at all comparable to rape.

They wouldn't call it rape though, you are right. They'd call it target practice.

Are you now advocating murder?

No, they would. I get that pronouns are tough subject these days, but really pronouns do matter.

I would not think many fathers would be thrilled about their 18 year old daughter boinking a 40 year old either. Do you advocate murder in that case too?

Are you even trying to have a conversation?

 

[Derec]

In most of the developed world, they understand 16 year olds be fucking. Now do you think age of consent for that age was designed for them, or middle aged guys like you and I?

Age of consent means it's open, as long as it is consensual. Even those under 16 be fucking, as you put it, and there "close age exceptions" exist.
I think 16 rather than 18 is a good cutoff because it protects from the "babyface" trap Loren was talking about. Many 17 year olds can pass for early 20s, but 15 year olds don't.

By the way, in the supposedly liberal California AOC is 18 with no close age exceptions. 18 year old and a 17 year having consensual sex is a crime. According to you leftist puritans, the 18 year old is a "rapist", both morally and legally.

Sorry in advance if I'm stealing some of your moves.

Not my move. I am not arguing this for myself. But this puritan attitude affects more than just Matt Getz types.
It has a detrimental attitude to the whole society.

This may be construed as a personal attack but it isn't - Derec, those years are gone man. They are not coming back.

What years?

Please act your age. Don't run into the wrong Dad.

So you are in fact advocating for murder even for consensual sex between two adults as long as the age gap is more than the father of the younger adult approves of?
Good to know.

 

[Derec]

Are you even trying to have a conversation?

Yes. I wanted you to clarify a statement where you seem to be advocating for murder. You have not really clarified anything. In fact, you obfuscated more with your pronoun detour.

 

[laughing dog]

Rape is well understood both legally and morally

To call consensual sex "rape" is something as far as I know unique to US.
There certainly is no moral equivalence between raping somebody and having consensual sex with them, even if she is 17. Especially if the older partner did not know that the younger one was under 18.
Other developed counties have laws protecting youth. However, hey do set a more reasonable age of consent and they do not pretend that non-rape is rape. It's funny how so-called liberals get medieval on this one issue and will defend US puritan attitudes toward it as the only sensible approach.

despite the attempts of misogynists, sadists, NAMBLAists ,and their unwitting dupes.

The fuck? I am just advocating for a more sensible, and less puritanical approach to all this.
Nothing "misogynist", "saidst" or "NAMBLAist" about anything I wrote.

And it should apply to women too, of course, so your accusation of "misogyny" is even more baffling than your usual hot takes.
If a woman has consensual sex with somebody who is 17, I do not think she is a "rapist" either. And if the teen lied about his age and told her he was 18 I do not think she did anything wrong whatsoever.

People can look older than younger than the age they are. What are you people advocating? Carding all potential sex partners? Even IDs can be faked.

People are simply pointing out that if one is not sure of the age of one’s potential sex partner and one is worried about potential charges of statutory rape, either verify the age or forego the sex.

 

[laughing dog]

Jesus! It sounds like Derec is defending sexual assault! Heaven forbid we call it rape.

No, I am saying that consensual sex in not rape or sexual assault.

While some here (laughing dog, Patooka) seem to think it's rape (and indeed like raping 10 year olds according to Arctish) if you have consensual sex with somebody young-looking even if they are over 18.

Statutory rape is rape, no matter what much your penis disagrees.

 

[Arctish]

What do you call the penetrative sex acts performed by Jerry Sandusky on "babyfaced" males, aka boys? If it wasn't rape, what was it?

Sandusky raped boys as young as 10. How do you get from what Loren talked about (and what I was responding to) to anything like what Sandusky was doing just proves my point about puritan streak in the US Left.

Sandusky abused boys aged 8-17

What do you call the penetrative sex acts Jerry Sandusky performed on "babyfaced" 16 and 17 year old males, aka boys?

If it wasn't rape, what was it?

 

[Patooka]

So you are in fact advocating for murder even for consensual sex between two adults as long as the age gap is more than the father of the younger adult approves of?
Good to know.

Yes that is what I mean. Learn from it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. complete strangers you haven't even had a basic adult conversation with. Quite unfair to the baby-faced morons who show poor judgement.

Fixed. Also, as I have said before so I'm fucking amazed that this needs repeating, if you are over 30 and are still looking for chicks that are or look 17 there is something fucking wrong with you.

Which still doesn't address the baby-faced. Everyone's addressing this from the standpoint of the older person and not seeing that it causes a problem the other way around.

. Let me get this straight. You are against the principle of refraining from having a sex with someone who looks underage and who cannot verify their age because it is unfair to them. But you are okay with people killing people who maybe armed and maybe dangerous even though that is much more unfair to the victims.

Seems to me that your priorities are completely out of whack.

You have it backwards. I'm saying said person should provide evidence of their age. But the law should accept that as adequate, like the law accepts proof of age as adequate for alcohol and tobacco sales.

Several of you keep being stuck on the pattern of thinking there is an absolute answer when there isn't. Traci Lords is the most extreme case: gold standard of proof she was legal--but they went after the producers anyway.

 

[laughing dog]

And we are back to the don't have sex with the baby-faced. complete strangers you haven't even had a basic adult conversation with. Quite unfair to the baby-faced morons who show poor judgement.

Fixed. Also, as I have said before so I'm fucking amazed that this needs repeating, if you are over 30 and are still looking for chicks that are or look 17 there is something fucking wrong with you.

Which still doesn't address the baby-faced. Everyone's addressing this from the standpoint of the older person and not seeing that it causes a problem the other way around.

. Let me get this straight. You are against the principle of refraining from having a sex with someone who looks underage and who cannot verify their age because it is unfair to them. But you are okay with people killing people who maybe armed and maybe dangerous even though that is much more unfair to the victims.

Seems to me that your priorities are completely out of whack.

You have it backwards. I'm saying said person should provide evidence of their age. But the law should accept that as adequate, like the law accepts proof of age as adequate for alcohol and tobacco sales.

The law usually does.
And whether the law does or does not has nothing to with your ridiculous concern over the issue of fairness to the baby-faced.

Several of you keep being stuck on the pattern of thinking there is an absolute answer when there isn't. Traci Lords is the most extreme case: gold standard of proof she was legal--but they went after the producers anyway.

Please stop projecting straw men.

Traci Lords is an extreme case because it is not a similiar situation of a private sexual encounter but of child pornography. Holding the producers to a higher standard of verification of age in the generation of pornography is a rational approach in reducing child porn.