100 FUCKING PEDOS EXCEPT ME

Its legal in our country but I don't if I would. She'd have to be really hot and mature.

At the age I'm at now no, simply because I don't find them attractive. I've yet to meet a 16yr old emotionally mature enough for me these days - and to me sex is not just a physical thing. But were I younger, were she very mature for her age etc etc. FAR too many IF's and as has been said it's far from being black and white. 16 is legal here no matter what the age of the other person.

As has been said SOME 14/15/16 yr olds ARE mature enough to decide, while some 22 year olds aren't. But, there has to be a cut off line somewhere and 16 is as good an age as any for much of the world. Obviously the lower down the age range you go the smaller the % who are mature enough to make that decision and the opposite is true the other way - however to say the age is the same for every person from an emotional standpoint is plain daft at best.

Oh and for those still confused - pedos aren't after pubescent girls/women. People seem to be very confused about that point.

Here is a quote for the uneducated sheep here:



The American Psychiatric Association defines Pedophilia:

A pedophile is a person who over at least a 6 month period has recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (age 13 years or younger). The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children. Not to include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12 or 13 year old (straight or gay). Individuals with pedophilia generally report an attraction to children of a particular age range. Some individuals prefer males, others prefer females, and some are aroused by both males and females. Pedophila involving female victims is reported more than pedophilia involving male victims.

Good post Lane.

People get so many things confused within these issues, and I'm not sure why. They confuse doing content with having sex in private, they confuse morality with law, and they are confused about the definition of what pedophilia is. So much confusion, it makes me wonder about the effectiveness of the public education system.

I was 17 when I had a kid and the mother was 16. I am 23 now and would not sleep with a 16 year old I have found that most 18 year olds arn't mature enuff to have sex with. You must show I.D to be with fury....:2 cents:

Sure i would. But can do that here.

I'm inclined to agree with the technical definition given there... and I qualified my remarks early on this subject.

Note however that the straight dictionary definition is simply an adult who has sex with a child. This has probably become more of a 'colloquialism' - leading to someone with my views calling adults who have sex with 16 year olds 'pedophiles' in a moment of anger. Eg, an adult who preys on a child.

Not to mention the fact that the point was strongly made earlier by others than myself that age is apparently less of a factor than maturity, environment, etc - so it seems strange for people to jump on the 'age definition' bandwagon now.

I don't think there was any confusion between morality and law, CD. The discussion was on 'would you' as per the original poll - making it a moral issue, and up for grabs on debate. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right - and vice versa. EG, gay marriages, anal sex is still illegal in some places.

This was always a discussion about morality, the law was brought up by proponents of this concept, not by it's opponents. Certainly not by me.

My opinion remains unchanged, and it's certainly not due to a lack of understanding between the nuances of legality vs. morality.

YOU ARE GAY!

One final point I will make:

I have my own fixed ideas regarding the age of 16. MANY disagree with me on this.

However, please realize that all of you (at least I hope so) have the exact same fixed standard. You just have a different age barrier than I do.

If the original poll had been entitled - would you have sex with a 14 year old, I'm sure many would have responded as being appalled, as I did with this one.

Posters could come back saying "But some 14 year olds look older, act older, are more mature..." and would have gotten shot down as I did.

Why wouldn't the same arguements apply? Remembering that this is a moral debate.

Couldn't those same arguements be used to justify sex with a 14 year old?

I'm not saying this to slap anyone in the face - just trying to put them in my shoes. I have the same perspective about 16 year olds that most probably have about 13 or 14 year olds.

I honestly think some 14 year olds are ready. Probably less than one in a million, but some, yes. At 15, that group will have grown, at 16 even more, still more at 17, etc. Maturing is a process, which some go through faster than others.

man you are a fucking retard.

you are telling me that if a 22 year old guy fucks a 16 year old girl that he is an "Osama supporting, piss drinking, shitbird fucktard" amoung other things...

what about the 40 year old who spends hundreds if not thousands of dollars at the local bar to nail some 19 year old waitress/bartender/bar-goer.

incase your math skills arent much better then your logic...

22 - 16 = 6
40 - 19 = 21

more then 3 times the age difference.... and i bet that 19 year old is soooo much more mature and competent then her 16 year old counterpart.

yet you would be the first to crucify the 22 year old for being a pedo.

personally, what two people do behind closed doors is no ones fucking business.

unless one is clearly taking advantage of the other...

which, to be honest, it is alot easier for a 40 year old to play on the heartstrings of a 19 year old, then a 20something year old guy banging the high school slut.

:321GFY

You obviously haven't read all the posts, so I won't bother replying.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Exactly!

Oh, as a side note :

22-12 = 10
40-19 = 21

So... it's more acceptable, with your math, for a 22 year old to fuck a 12 year old than for a 40 year old to be a 19 year old?

I doubt you think so, but the example is a summation of all the points your post missed, and the entire theme of my various posts.

We're not talking about 19 year olds... we're talking about 16 year olds. That's what the thread is about - do you want me to Hellen Keller it for ya?

:321GFY

Maybe not by yourself, but I believe it was someone named pamphage who did put up a few posts which led me to wonder about his possible confusion. But in issues such as this one people are always going to point out the legal limits as well as discuss the moral aspects, and very often the two are vastly apart with some, not so much with others.


I will go so far as to say that adults in their early-to-mid-20's and older having a sexual relationship with a 16 yr old is usually, almost always, morally wrong. There have been and will be instances when it isn't, however. And part of my point was that sometimes, whether it is or isn't morally wrong, whether the parents of the adolescent like it or not, it happens. I can certainly see where it would suck big time being the dad in such a scenario.