Zoe makes my teeth sweat.

Risk your life? What are you idiots talking about? It is legal to have sex with girls at their age.

But is it morally right? Well, for anyone over the age of 19 or so I'd say probably not.

But it's not illegal. They are well within the age of consent for having sex. I think some of you are confusing the illegal-ness of using them for nude content on the net, and that we should all know by now is quite illegal, as it should be.

To spell it out for you...

16 yr old girls are legally allowed to have sex, at least in Canada and in many states and other countries. No one's going to jail for it.

Hiring 16 yr old girls to pose nude and displaying the images or videos online for public viewing/distribution is ILLegal. Hopefully everyone that does this WILL go to jail.




Btw, is that a tatoo on her arm? These two are getting tatoos now? What is it with young girls these days? Seems like every 3rd one has metal on her face and in her belly button and is marked up with a bunch of gnarly tatoos. And to the dope that called these beauties "ugly".... I think you have your taste in your ass buddy.

Thank you.

Hmmmmmm is common knowledge aint it?? I thought everyone knew that.. lol

Actually I have a few friends who are cops.. and we were talking about this.. :Graucho

those girls are actually going out with some fags from my school (New York University), well, one of them anyway

For the record.

Last I knew they were little girls on a TV show, I have no clue how old they are.

But the title says 'Would you risk jailtime'

I assumed they were still underage.

(shrug)

Actually, the age of consent for having sex is as low as 14 in some areas.
These girls are 16, they are legal for sex. Consentual sex that is.


But not legal for being adult "content".

a buddy of mine has a countodown to screwing the twins on http://paulfirlotte.com

Nope...i wouldnt

no thanks

485 days, 19 hours, 43 minutes, and 24 seconds

Consentual sex with a 26 year old man?

I dont think its legal here homie.

I cant fuck 16 year old girls in Calif. not sure what goes on in Canada or abroad, I try to follow the laws of where i am and just stay away from minors period.

Im 26 and if they are 16, im nowhere near it.

bottom line.

I can wait a couple years, but the only reason I'd bang them is to make them fall for me after I give them both the hot beef injection. Once that's complete, I'll sweet talk them and have them give me a piece of their billion dollar bank account (and maybe some of their cute little purses and handbags for my baby sister :Graucho )!

Sadly in Canada it is legal to have sex with a 16 year old, no matter how old you are. It's disgusting if you ask me, any 30 year old who fucks a 16 year old should go to jail.

That being said I'd fuck the shit out of both of those two mini Cameron Diaz's on their 18 birthday. :Graucho

well iam in the uk and as far as i know they are 16 , whihc is the legal age over here, but even if it were illegal i would still want some ;-)

Aww...*blushes*

um...

Damn you must have some ugly girls in your area ... they look like dykes to me ...

sex isn't worth doing time for, but if they were 18 and opportunity presented itself.... HELL YA! :Graucho

Looks like you missed out the part of my first post where I talked about it being "morally" wrong, and the part about how guys over the age of about 19 would probably fall into the morally wrong category.

Of course it's wrong, but 16 yr old girls can and do have sex with whomever they want, and as long as it is consentual it is legal in many areas. Not all areas, but many. It's called the "age of consent", and it may vary from state to state and country to country, but nowadays MOST areas have that age set at either 14, 15 or 16 from what I've read. I would be very surprised if the legal age of consent in California was over 16. I doubt it.

For dummies that just don't seem to want to understand what I'm saying.... I'm saying that although it may be wrong, it is legal. Would I fuck a 16 yr old? No.

your just sick

its ok if your gay

Appears so.
I didnt think the 'age of consent' had anything to do with consenting for minors to fuck adults. I though it was the general age of when people could have sex, not distinguishing between the age groups of adults and children, think about it. But that gives them the legal right for 16 year old to fuck each other, not 30 year old men.

As for the age of consent in california.

18.

according to: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Again, its not legal for me to fuck a 16 year old, and <i>that</i> is what the title of the thread was.

I would NOT risk jailtime.

Didnt have to turn into a moral and national legal debate hehehe

tis not legal so i wouldnt risk it, simple answer eh?

wow on that same site it says its 14 in Canada.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/canada.htm

when the time is right for the both of them....

bukkake:thumbsup

>> Topic: Would you do jailtime for some of this ?

I already have :))

and i'd fuck the sht out of them again over and over and ovr again.

From the wording of articles describing such laws that I've read, I'd say that there is no actual language that specifies what ages are *okay* and what ages are not okay for people that are of legal age of consent to have sex with. Until you can show such proof, I'm inclined to beleive there isn't. Age of consent means just that --- the person is of legal age to make the decision to have consensual sex. Period. If that's with an 18 yr old, or a 50 yr old, where is it written specifically that there are any restrictions (other than the person's own moral code)?

Show me oh wise one. It may not be legal for *you* being in California, but the title said nothing about your particular state. Fact is it is legal in many other states and countries chief. Sorry, since it IS a moral question as well as a legal question, I don't think the points I've made are out of line at all. No one's holding a gun to your head to continue discussion here are they?


I'm condoning nothing, btw. All I've said is that it is not illegal for a 16 yr old to have sex with whomever they want (except in certain areas where they must be 18). So if it is not illegal, it then becomes a moral issue.... which is: "is it *right* to do so if you're much older?"
Seems there are quite a few guys here that would, and quite a few that say they wouldn't, mostly based on the fact that they don't find these two girls attractive. That raises the question of.... if the 16 yr old girls WERE more attractive, would those guys go for it?

For myself, I prefer women. Nice curvey grownup women, not little girls. I take it we agree on this point Fletch. Shall we *bowl*?

Not even once they turn 18.

16 is legal here so HELL YEAH !!!

:winkwink:

Haha!

No wonder my ex wanted me to move there with him a couple years back....

Exactly hence my reply:

'Didnt have to turn into a moral and national legal debate'

which you even quote yet still challenge? Its not legal here, its legal there. No one cares.

I was simply saying the thread only asked a simple question yet you keep bringing up these moral and age of consent arguments? Why? I simply said I would not, yet you feel the need to challenege it.
Thats funny you take 2 hours to reply to an argument you claim I am continuing? Stop taking 2 hours to reply homie and then expect me not to reply?

Weak.

always down for herbs.

Gotcha. The old "<i>old enough to pee --- old enough for me"</i> ploy is it?


or maybe <i>"Old enough to bleed -- old enough to breed"</i> more accurately nails it, yes?


I suppose when I was in my 20's I joked about those sayings, but as I've gotten older, well.... in the immortal words of Hank Hill.... "I am not DOWN with that"

:D

Still too young for me. few years and i'd be all over it.

Wasn't challenging you on the fact that you "wouldn't", I was challenging the blanket statement that it is illegal. It isn't in all areas. AND, If you think this isn't a moral issue, you're way out to lunch. It is, especially so in areas where it is deemed legal. You're high right now, right? LOL..... Because, if you look at the time of that post of mine you'd see that I replied to you at least 2 hours ago. It took me about 90 seconds to type that reply. Okay, I see what you're getting at.... my reply was 2 hours after yours. Whoopee. I think you missed the intent of my remark on that point.

And really, who cares how long it takes for someone to reply anyway? This is a message board, not a chat room. It can take some people 3 weeks to reply, so what.




K, I think this one has run it's course, no? See you on the next informative thread Fletch. Always like shooting the shit with you bro. Nice to bat it back and forth with someone that has a higher than grade 2 debate skill.

Later.:thumbsup

I guess you and I wont be debating any time soon :( damn.