It is not that his opinion was faulted or flamed, it was his attitude that a 20 yo guy should be allowed to have sex with 12 yo girls if they want it.

 

Sounds like he needs more protein then

 

That's what reinforcements are for!

 

So the idea is to let older men or women can take advantage of younger men or women without fear of repercussions... Because that's really the only area that this will effect. Acting as though all kids under 18 are virgins is just plain stupid, and very blatantly untrue. kids fuck all the time, the only difference is that, because of the consent law, kids usually fuck other kids their age, not old perverts, because the pervs are afraid of getting caught, while the kids themselves usually are discreet enough around adults that they are safe from the repercussions (also, most states have different laws if both parties are under the age of consent.)

 

what ???

 

It's a good thing I don't like to rape and sacrifice enslaved animals any more. Then again I don't do it any less either.

 

That *IS* an opinion, and in any event you're a liar. He never advocated non-consensual sex with 12 year olds; he wants to lower the age of consent.

 

And it's obvious you didn't read what I posted. G'ma had a baby at 13, then at 16 she married a man in his 40's who, by his first wife, had had 4 children including a daughter the same age as my g'ma. And she outlived 3 husbands and had children by 5 different men.

Yes, in most societies a male or female was considered an adult at age 13, but the life expectancy wasn't a long one. Today, our life span has almost doubled. My objection is allowing a man to have sex with an underaged minor because he "deems" it to be his right. ALL societies have laws even the so called stone-age tribes in Papau New Guinea.

 

Thanks for posting that Suze . . . . it was a real eye-opener for sure.

Especially this one ...

Sanctuary?

 

I never said I did either, but I guess some people can't read most of my post throughout this thread. I should of titled the thread that it's more or less natural up until 10,000 years for my case to be so, but I'm not the best writer on earth and put my shoe in my mouth to a point. I will never ever touch a child in anyway that would be illigal, but look at europe and you will see that laws are around 12-16 in many many of those countries. God grow the fuck up.

Also I said consent.

 

You posted that there was a reason. I pointed out what it was.

Then why are you battering the OP who has never made any such suggestion.

 

No one said he wanted to have non-consensual sex with 12 year olds, I think the general consensus is that because for the dumber 12 year olds, you could probably get their consent by offering them a piece of candy, that age is too young

 

G'ma liked men...

 

Are there, in fact, any female residents in the Vatican? I've never been, but I take it all the priests, bishops, cardinals etc. are male. Are there nuns? Are there non-religious staff like cleaners and the like?

Maybe the only reason they haven't changed that is because it's a completely irrelevant law ... I don't suppose they'd let it stay in place if anyone actually made use of it.

 

With the dumber 40 year olds, you can do it for a glass of martini. That seems to be okay.

 

I'm not battering the OP. I just think 12-13 is too young for that responsibility. With as many out of wedlock pregnancies there are and free birth control available to anyone who wants it, there are LOTS of people much older who are not responsible for that responsibility.

 

i´m sorry for being the foreigner !

but what the hell does this mean ? like 10yos should get their sexual independance ?

 

fair enough heyesay, but usually by that time their fully grown and having sex with a fully grown male is not going to cause emotional or physical harm, at age 13, it can cause one or both of those.