hahaha for a while i forgot all about this site

[Yuri Bezmenov]

I didn't mean 'called you paedophile vs pedophile'. What I meant, was he said it a couple of days ago too. I simply spelled the word the way I'd usually spell it, being british, there is an 'a' in there. So I spell the word 'paedophile'. Not trying to pick apart things based on the way them damn yanks bastardized the english language

Oh, come on, everyone knows that Benjamin Franklin invented English in addition to inventing electricity.      

And IMO what matters isn't puberty or age, its what someone is capable of and wants. (again within reason), if someone is legally underage but emotionally and psychologically capable of, and wanting a relationship then I really couldn't give a fuck about the legal definition. Paedos exploit kids, a whole other kettle of (pretty damn rotten) fish, compared to two people who both want each other and one of them being legally too young.

Mentally...people can be well over the age of consent, legally speaking and still be unable to consent. What matters to me is that someone consents without any manipulation, coercion or other such scheming nastiness. If someone underage is determined to take an older guy and stay with them in a bilaterally loving relationship then bugger the law. Only crime in that, when there is no abuse involved, is the older one getting caught.

That's pretty much my position too, Not sure why Zegh decided why it made me an evil person.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

All that I ever did was articulate the position that as soon as a girl goes through puberty, then she's physically fair game.

It depends what definition you are using. By the legal definition in Australia, for example, it is age based rather than physical maturity based. So if you come to Oz and shag underage girls you are a paedophile.

I was talking about the biological definition. As soon as there's grass on the field, you can play ball.

And so can your cellmate.

[Gopher Gary]

Oh and gopher features, just in case you misread what I just realized could be an ambiguous wording, I meant 'younger in general' as opposed to 'younger than 8'. I'm no pervert. Well not in that kind of way anyway, although a few people could probably tell you a few stories, at least if they were willing to speak of certain things, which they probably aren't...I'm sure that one ex of mine doesn't want to be banned for life from that shopping center...

Tell it to Zegh, be sure to include her age, and report back on how he responds to all that. 

[odeon]

All that I ever did was articulate the position that as soon as a girl goes through puberty, then she's physically fair game.

It depends what definition you are using. By the legal definition in Australia, for example, it is age based rather than physical maturity based. So if you come to Oz and shag underage girls you are a paedophile.

I was talking about the biological definition. As soon as there's grass on the field, you can play ball.

A position that, if acted upon, can, and should, have you locked away in most civilised countries.

['andersom']

All that I ever did was articulate the position that as soon as a girl goes through puberty, then she's physically fair game.

It depends what definition you are using. By the legal definition in Australia, for example, it is age based rather than physical maturity based. So if you come to Oz and shag underage girls you are a paedophile.

I was talking about the biological definition. As soon as there's grass on the field, you can play ball.

A position that, if acted upon, can, and should, have you locked away in most civilised countries.

And rightly so. Physical puberty comes earlier and earlier.

By Scraps definition I would have been fair game at age 11. I was far from ready for that at that age. I was a late bloomer.
There are girls younger than that ready according to Scraps rule.

Under ten years old. Really? Primary school?


Those bodies may bleed monthly, there may be some or more breast, there may be pubic hair, but those girls are still kids. And as mature as their bodies may seem, a thing like pregnancy often is a real danger for girls that age. Both physically and mentally.

[Al Swearegen]

I may have misread something in all of this or so.e nuance.
I ready Scrap as saying a girl having gone through puberty.

I know girls may start puberty at as young as 10 but if he has said a girl having gone through puberty that is hardly a 10 year old girl and it would be a really poor thing to strawman that.

I hope no one is doing thathe.

I will need to go back and read exactly what was said but if that is the case then it appears apologies are owed to Scrap. Otherwise Scrap may really need to clarify what the Hell he is on about and whether he is talking about whether teenagers going through transition readying their bodies to procreate with puberty is a good thing, something to take advantage of, a self-evident truth that they are biologically maturing, or what exactly?

['andersom']

I was talking about the biological definition. As soon as there's grass on the field, you can play ball.

The "grass on the field" is not a sign of maturity.

And there are people who will be mentally ready for sex, over the legal age and not showing the bodily signs.

There are cultures where boobs, pubic hair and menses are enough to see a girl fit to breed with.

And there are lots of girls end primary school with cup C or D.

Scrap seems to take the physical signals as leading when it comes to seeing a girl as fair game or not.


And well, if two twelve year olds want to have sex, I hope they've had proper sec ed. But when one of the two, be it boy or girl, is a 12 or 13 year old, and the other sex partner an adult? That's a whole different thing. No matter how full grown the sexual organs of the kids are.

[Lestat]

The biology isn't the important bit for the most part, its the mentality.

For example, in extremis, there exist cases on record where a five year old has been made pregnant. She was therefore, biologically ready to reproduce, or at least capable of doing so. But you can bet you bottom dollar that there is no case in which shagging a five year old is either desirable or right.

Biggest age difference I've been with (on the younger end, I've also dated far, far older women, someone in her 50s) was 14. Me..about 19 at the time. Autie chick, pounced on me and more or less dragged me off caveman style. As in 'whack over the head, right, once you've recovered, don't forget to bring me back some tender cuts of Smilodon' I could have said no, legally I was meant to, but it just happened (in this particular case I don't think I COULD have stopped it happening, short of seeing her coming fast enough, realizing her intentions and actually hurting her to stop her doing what she was hell-bent on doing, and that I wouldn't do)

And it went on from there. I really, really, really regret the way things turned out in the end, and that I didn't end up married to her. If things had been different, we'd probably come as a pair on here, and be bitching together  about how the kids were playing up last night.

I draw a line between 'illegal by statute' and 'abuse', the former I couldn't give a rat's ass about, the latter I'll have no part in, and if I do sniff it out then the abuser is likely to meet a side of me people rarely see, and that nobody ever wants to meet.

If someone can mentally consent, never mind whether they have hair down there or not, and if the partnership is equal in all respects, and both love each other, I'm allright with it. Does it make me a paedophile? hell no. Officially speaking that particular engagement, would have been viewed that way, but I don't seek out young girls for relationships. If I'm going to get into a relationship, the important thing to me isn't the age, but that both of us are right for the other. 14? 50? either way, if it just so happens that the two of us click together and 'work' then its on, assuming we both want it that way. Otherwise, its either someone else or noone else.

[Al Swearegen]

I was talking about the biological definition. As soon as there's grass on the field, you can play ball.

The "grass on the field" is not a sign of maturity.

And there are people who will be mentally ready for sex, over the legal age and not showing the bodily signs.

There are cultures where boobs, pubic hair and menses are enough to see a girl fit to breed with.

And there are lots of girls end primary school with cup C or D.

Scrap seems to take the physical signals as leading when it comes to seeing a girl as fair game or not.


And well, if two twelve year olds want to have sex, I hope they've had proper sec ed. But when one of the two, be it boy or girl, is a 12 or 13 year old, and the other sex partner an adult? That's a whole different thing. No matter how full grown the sexual organs of the kids are.

No Idea about what grass on the field means in biological terms. However this seemed pretty clear to me

All that I ever did was articulate the position that as soon as a girl goes through puberty, then she's physically fair game.

Reading this initially "a girl goes through puberty". Has a 10 year old girl "gone through puberty" or has a 10 year old girl just started puberty?

My impression is that Scrap is saying that once a girl has gone through puberty (not started but actually finished), that she is at least physically ready for sex and that having sex with fully physically matured girls seems like a wonderful idea.

Again, let's be honest, does anyone here REALLY Think Scrap is saying that he or anyone should have sex with a 10 year old?

I will be even more clear though. Given that most girls finish puberty by about 16 I still say THIS is too young for anyone but similar aged kids  to consider a good bet for sex BUT it is legal in most countries and as repulsive as some may find the thought of middle aged men getting with young ladies this age, it is not illegal in most cases. Personally I think it is a bad idea BUT NOT paedophilia and NOT a case for getting with 10 year olds.

I would not mind further clarity from Scrap as to what he is suggesting BUT I also would like anyone trying to make the case for Scrap advocating for sex with minor children of 10 years of age whether he in ANY way has made a case for this?

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

So the problem was that Pappy and Zegh were using different definitions of the word "paedophile"?

"And all this time, we could have been such friends!".

I'd like more clarification from Pappy as well. Being attracted to post-pubescent girls, regardless of age, is not a mental illness or perversion. But still the age of consent is there for a reason, to stop emotionally immature adolescents from being sexually exploited. Half my age plus seven is about as low as I'd go, and that's more than double the age of consent so I'm pretty safe there.

[odeon]

I may have misread something in all of this or so.e nuance.
I ready Scrap as saying a girl having gone through puberty.

I know girls may start puberty at as young as 10 but if he has said a girl having gone through puberty that is hardly a 10 year old girl and it would be a really poor thing to strawman that.

I hope no one is doing thathe.

I will need to go back and read exactly what was said but if that is the case then it appears apologies are owed to Scrap. Otherwise Scrap may really need to clarify what the Hell he is on about and whether he is talking about whether teenagers going through transition readying their bodies to procreate with puberty is a good thing, something to take advantage of, a self-evident truth that they are biologically maturing, or what exactly?

Apologies? For this?

I was talking about the biological definition. As soon as there's grass on the field, you can play ball.

Yes, you need to start paying attention.

[odeon]

Again, let's be honest, does anyone here REALLY Think Scrap is saying that he or anyone should have sex with a 10 year old?

Yeah, let's be honest. He didn't mention age at all, only physical attributes. There are 11-yo girls that have those.

[Al Swearegen]

Again, let's be honest, does anyone here REALLY Think Scrap is saying that he or anyone should have sex with a 10 year old?

Yeah, let's be honest. He didn't mention age at all, only physical attributes. There are 11-yo girls that have those.

Okay time for Odeon brand of honesty. Scrap said once a girl has gone through puberty and Odeon said he only mentioned attributes (that girls having gone through puberty have) and THEREFORE Sscrap just want to screw 11 year Olds.

I mean let's forget that he said once they have gone through puberty and let's complete dismiss that each of us has a snapshot of exactly the kind of big boobed women he often post naked pics of on here. A definite type and all with the body of women not girls.

But a better idea is to deliberately misconstrue, write a different narrative as a moral challenge for him to have to defend against being the worst kind of monster, whilst signaling your own virtues around this matter.....honesty be damned. Right?

[Gopher Gary]

If someone can mentally consent, never mind whether they have hair down there or not, and if the partnership is equal in all respects, and both love each other, I'm allright with it.

I'm telling Zegh you said that. 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

The thing I like about Pappy is that he doesn't go in for walls of incomprehensible double-speak. And he doesn't go in for the epic butthurt when someone thinks he means what it sounds like he means.

And in this case I'm inclined to believe that he means exactly what it sounds like he means. Unless he can explain otherwise.