Ghosts of Nubblies Past

[malibu]

Don't know but it's never right for a 25 year old to hit on a 17 year old. Period. There are plenty of women in the world that are over 18, no need to cross that boundary.

[Cocktooth]

Originally Posted by f3lix

If only Shaw would take the hint and leave.

Feeling a little bit intimidated? It's natural for pussies like you Felix.

[angry pancake]

Originally Posted by malibu

Don't know but it's never right for a 25 year old to hit on a 17 year old. Period. There are plenty of women in the world that are over 18, no need to cross that boundary.

Isn't the boundary age 16 in Indiana? Best piece I recall ever having was with a 17 year old (granted I was only 18). Boundless amounts of energy could go on forever it seems. Awesome summer that was. She did however end up aborting my baby in October of that year. God Bless her.

[malibu]

Originally Posted by angry pancake

Isn't the boundary age 16 in Indiana? Best piece I recall ever having was with a 17 year old (granted I was only 18). Boundless amounts of energy could go on forever it seems. Awesome summer that was. She did however end up aborting my baby in October of that year. God Bless her.

Wow, just um, wow.
The way the "age of consent" works is a 2 year difference. This means that an 18 year old can go as low as 16, a 19 year old can go as low as 17. So either way, 25+17= asking for trouble.

[Fruitacious B]

I'm not stressing about it. He was smashed, and nothing was going to happen. I like Niger, and I doubt he even remembers much of last night.

But that's not going to stop me from trying to get that video....

[malibu]

Indeed Fruit. Niger is a good guy, I agree, but a video is definitely in order for this type of behavior. See, if he got on Nubblies, he might remember some details from last night. What a shame.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by malibu

Wow, just um, wow.
The way the "age of consent" works is a 2 year difference. This means that an 18 year old can go as low as 16, a 19 year old can go as low as 17. So either way, 25+17= asking for trouble.

Nope, the two year difference only applies to those under the age of consent; for example a 16 and 14 year old or a 17 and 15 year old.

Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

I wonder how, why, and when our culture decided it was so taboo to bone chicks under the arbitrary age of 18. Back in the day women were women once they sprouted grass.

Jailbait Gallery - These are the youngest jailbait photos and oldest teen photos according to our visitors.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by malibu

And seriously Fruit, he was hitting on your 17 year old sister? That's messed up in a lot of ways, not even going to lie.

Can you tell me all the ways?

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by malibu

Don't know but it's never right for a 25 year old to hit on a 17 year old. Period. There are plenty of women in the world that are over 18, no need to cross that boundary.

Seriously though, why are you so blindly ascribing to this, as ID already said, arbitrary limit? I'll generally obey the law after a quick risk/reward analysis, but I really don't think that you should take it as morally serious as you seem to. Scenario:

I'm 26. Let's say one of my buddies younger sister has a sister who i've known for 2 years, but never hit on. She's 17 years old...but tonight, at midnight, she turns 18, and I show up at her house and have consensual sex. It's suddenly morally "okay" to sleep with her based on a one minute difference, whereas a minute earlier she was untouchable?

[Fruitacious B]

'Arbitrary' doesn't apply to my sister.

I don't care if she turned eighteen two years ago (she didn't, she's still 17)...if you don't meet my age requirements, you're not bangin' my sister, bottom line.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely age discriminate...but if you don't measure up, you sure as shit won't get very far before I remove your testicles with a pair of toenail clippers.

[Mr. Blonde]

Ah, the ever-cliched hyper-protective older brother. Do you meet her dates with a baseball bat over your shoulder at the front door?

[malibu]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Seriously though, why are you so blindly ascribing to this, as ID already said, arbitrary limit? I'll generally obey the law after a quick risk/reward analysis, but I really don't think that you should take it as morally serious as you seem to. Scenario:

I'm 26. Let's say one of my buddies younger sister has a sister who i've known for 2 years, but never hit on. She's 17 years old...but tonight, at midnight, she turns 18, and I show up at her house and have consensual sex. It's suddenly morally "okay" to sleep with her based on a one minute difference, whereas a minute earlier she was untouchable?

What the law says, goes. Obviously Beebs corrected my misunderstanding of the consent law, so apparently once it hits midnight on her 16th birthday, you're in the clear. I didn't say it was morally wrong in the first place. I just think girls at the age have a tough time keeping sex in perspective. Until a certain level of maturity is reached, it can be hard for a girl just to accept if a guy just wants to get laid and move on with his life. That's all I'm saying. Plus, a guy in his mid-twenties has most likely already gotten his education or at least found a job, and who's to say that he's not going to get this teen girl knocked up and completely screw her future. I mean sex is sex, have your fun, but be sure that you take your sexual knowledge and compensate for her lack of such. Granted, girls these days are starting younger and younger all the time, I'm just saying, make sure you don't get yourself and her into trouble.

[Fruitacious B]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Ah, the ever-cliched hyper-protective older brother. Do you meet her dates with a baseball bat over your shoulder at the front door?

You must not have younger sisters.

[vaga1220 *]

Originally Posted by malibu

What the law says, goes. Obviously Beebs corrected my misunderstanding of the consent law, so apparently once it hits midnight on her 16th birthday, you're in the clear. I didn't say it was morally wrong in the first place. I just think girls at the age have a tough time keeping sex in perspective. Until a certain level of maturity is reached, it can be hard for a girl just to accept if a guy just wants to get laid and move on with his life. That's all I'm saying. Plus, a guy in his mid-twenties has most likely already gotten his education or at least found a job, and who's to say that he's not going to get this teen girl knocked up and completely screw her future. I mean sex is sex, have your fun, but be sure that you take your sexual knowledge and compensate for her lack of such. Granted, girls these days are starting younger and younger all the time, I'm just saying, make sure you don't get yourself and her into trouble.

You're logic is flawed.

[f3lix]

Malibu, any person having sex runs the risk of pregnancy, whether it be a 25 year old male or a 16 year old girl. If you want to take that risk, then go for it. I'd think the 25 year old guy has more to lose, since he has established himself.

[malibu]

Originally Posted by f3lix

Malibu, any person having sex runs the risk of pregnancy, whether it be a 25 year old male or a 16 year old girl. If you want to take that risk, then go for it. I'd think the 25 year old guy has more to lose, since he has established himself.

Right, but all I'm saying is that the 16 year old is not at all in a position to be prepared for something like that, it'll be near impossible for her to finish school or enjoy being young. While the 25 year-old has established himself, if he decided to jeopardize it all by boning some young girl, then he takes his own risks. But it's all pointless anyway, everyone makes their own decisions, I'm over it...

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

Ah, the ever-cliched hyper-protective older brother. Do you meet her dates with a baseball bat over your shoulder at the front door?

I thought Fruit was a girl until this post.

[f3lix]

Was that a little last-word-freak moment I just read? Making your statement, then declaring you're over it?

[Der Fuhrer]

Clearly someone who is 17 and not established has more to lose by getting pregnant than an established 25 year old. This is why there are established 25 year olds who actually plan to start a family and have children. I think it would be quite rare to see an unestablished 17 year old actually plan to have a child. If they do, there are probably outside forces playing a role, such as mental disorders. f3lix, once again you prove yourself as the smartest man who knows nothing.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by malibu

And seriously Fruit, he was hitting on your 17 year old sister? That's messed up in a lot of ways, not even going to lie.

Originally Posted by malibu

Don't know but it's never right for a 25 year old to hit on a 17 year old. Period.

Originally Posted by malibu

I didn't say it was morally wrong in the first place.

It seems to me that's exactly what you said. It's right up there. Where you said it's never right.

[malibu]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

It seems to me that's exactly what you said. It's right up there. Where you said it's never right.

IMO, I think it is wrong, but everyone has their own moral standards. Do whatever the hell you want, that's why I said I'm over it. I mean, really Blonde, Do you have nothing better to do than to try to prove me wrong every single time I make a post? Seems to me we were supposed to be talking about old Nubblies members that have disappeared. I threw in my two cents, and now we're moving on. Back to the matter at hand.

[Der Fuhrer]

Although I can't speak for malibu, I think she meant four things by her previous posts.

1. In her personal, moral beliefs, it is wrong for a 25 year old to hit on a 17 year old. In other words, large differences in maturity quantified by large differences in age make sexual advances of this nature morally wrong.

2. In society's view, it unacceptable for a 25 year old to hit on a 17 year old, hence the law of consent.

3. She then switched to saying it's not morally wrong so you would stfu and leave her alone. Maybe?

4. She wants to jump on my bone.

[Mr. Blonde]

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, i'm merely illustrating that you were contradicting yourself. You proved yourself wrong, I just pointed it out. There is nothing wrong with holding a member accountable for their posts; just because you're "over it" doesn't mean that you're immune from dissent.

What about Titan? He was the handicapped one, right?

[malibu]

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer

Although I can't speak for malibu, I think she meant four things by her previous posts.

1. In her personal, moral beliefs, it is wrong for a 25 year old to hit on a 17 year old. In other words, large differences in maturity quantified by large differences in age make sexual advances of this nature morally wrong.

2. In society's view, it unacceptable for a 25 year old to hit on a 17 year old, hence the law of consent.

3. She then switched to saying it's not morally wrong so you would stfu and leave her alone. Maybe?

4. She wants to jump on my bone.

Haha well you're right on most of those points Fuhrer... I wasn't really trying to switch to saying it wasn't morally wrong. More like, it's just a matter of opinion so instead of wasting my time arguing the matter, I figured I would just attempt to move on. Thank you for clarifying all of that for me though, because that's exactly what I was trying to say.