Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: karajorma on January 28, 2010, 03:07:47 am
-
http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/
The Australian Sex Party (ASP) said Wednesday that the Australian Classification Board (ACB) is now banning depictions of small-breasted women in adult publications and films. It comes just a week after it was found that material with depictions of females ejaculating during orgasm are now Refused Classification and Australian Customs directed to confiscate it.
ASP’s Fiona Patten writes on her party’s website that they are starting to see depictions of women in their late 20s being banned because they have an A cup breast size:
“This is in response to a campaign led by Kids Free 2 B Kids and promoted by Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett in Senate Estimates late last year. Mainstream companies such as Larry Flint’s Hustler produce some of the publications that have been banned. These companies are regulated by the FBI to ensure that only adult performers are featured in their publications.”
Patten writes that such bans may be an unintended consequence of the Senator’s actions “but they are largely responsible for the sharp increase in breast size in Australian adult magazines of late”.
How can this be happening
The National Classification Code dictates that anything that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not) in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult is Refused Classification.
State Crime Acts are also similar. Victoria’s Criminal Code includes the ‘or appears to be’ clause in its definition of child pornography and it doesn’t need to cause offence to a reasonable adult for it to be illegal.
Even if you are 18 years old but you look younger, taking a photograph of your breasts and uploading it to the Internet could land you or someone you know in serious trouble.
Australian adult blogger Ms Naughty says we need to look at what this ruling says to Australian women:
“Why ban small boobs? I can only assume it stems from paranoia that flat chests somehow stir up the pedophiles. And you only need to mention that “p” word to start a full-scale moral panic in Parliament.”
“Shall we put such hysteria aside and look at what this ruling is saying to Australian women? Basically, it’s classing a certain normal female body type as obscene. It’s declaring all flat chests to be automatically juvenile, something that should not be viewed by anyone because of a fear that it will stir up “base instincts” in certain people.”
“Can the Classification Board be any more insulting or sexist?”
This is a rather interesting development. If this goes on long enough and if the only porn available is porn with big boobs then this will probably cause a quite big shift towards Australian men only liking big boobs with the effect of making small breasted women feeling even more self concious about themselves.
I do admittedly find it funny that Australians have decided that the only reason anyone can be sexually attracted to a small breasted woman is because they're secretly a paedophile though.
-
Okay.
What. The ****.
-
That's just messed up...
-
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That's the most insane law EVAR!!!
-
and i though some American law makes had lost the plot
-
If I was less thankful for what this country has given me, I'd say almost say this makes me ashamed to be Australian.
-
I thought the size of a woman's breasts is determined genetically.
-
I laughed at one of the comments.
Shall we ban tiny penises too?
:lol:
-
... ... ... ...
-
Who decides which women look not-adult-enough?
-
what
two words
civil disobedience
-
What's their reasoning behind the non-squirting decision, though?
-
What's their reasoning behind the non-squirting decision, though?
If they can't get a woman to, then no one can be allowed to show it?
-----------------------
This whole thing is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. I can't imagine Australians putting up with this nonsense for much longer.
-
What's their reasoning behind the non-squirting decision, though?
Apparently golden showers are illegal in this country.
But this, this is ****ing absurd. Someone needs to slap these blokes across the face and knock some sense into them.
EDIT: Oh, and our backwards nation seems to think squirting comes under the category of golden showers... :wtf:
-
I do see the sense in it. And to be honest, if someone wants to find small boob porn. The intermets readily available if they want it badly enough.
This will have no impact on the target demographic. Just the old ones. And they should be ashamed anyway.
-
Dekker, the point is not whether or not someone likes to watch images of nekkid person that "appears to be" underage. The point is this:
-"or appears to be" is something that totally does not belong to any legislation. It's ambiguous, free to interpretation and bad for the credibility of the law.
-chest size is not a reliable measure of age.
-the point of anti-cp legislation is to protect underage people from abuse. If someone looks like they're fifteen when they're twenty-two, that shouldn't be a problem for them to pursue their career of choice (much as I would want to disagree with the integrity of said career, but that is irrelevant). Even less irrelevant is how someone perceives the imagery of said person.
I could think of more points why this is not exactly my idea of good legislation, but these I believe are the most glaringly obvious.
EDIT: As Kyon points out;
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa208/B_T_GRAVE/0e8838890a6be183f4229af8b5b54975197.jpg?)
:nervous:
-
What's their reasoning behind the non-squirting decision, though?
Apparently golden showers are illegal in this country.
Only depictions of - AFAIK, you're still right to piss on nayone over 18 who's willing to let you do it.
As for the censorship, it's no surprise. The ratings people over here are wacky. TBH, I'm much more annoyed by this internet filter they want to use for the same stuff, as is a huge chunk of the population. Not to mention the stuff going on over east against artists and whatnot.
Herra - "Appears to be" is a subset of "A reasonable adult", which is all through our legislation. On the one hand, yes, it makes the law a bit ambiguous, but it's generally used to good effect, and when it isn't, people notice.
[EDIT]Ah, I thought there was more to it than there seemd. According to The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/moral-cleansers-past-their-use-by-date/story-e6frg6qf-1111115258791) the classification board isn't exactly political neutral any more. This is a hangover from 11 years of conservative rule.
-
This country has a habit of going nowhere fast, whichever way you look at it these days.
-
Don't forget Mike Atkinson. :ick:
We need people like Margaret Pomeranz to step forward and deliver us from purgatory.
-
I appreciate where you're coming from Herra. I just don't agree :)
-
Here's what I wrote on CP earlier with some slight modifications:
Only pedophiles who cause the children harm should be prosecuted. Ergo no, crime, no victim, there should be no prosecution. I'm willing to admit that possession and distribution of "real CP" (the production of which involved child molestation) can lead to harm so should be prosecuted.
However the harm caused by "child abuse" is usually not the physical variety most associate with the act. It's psychological 'cause they imprint the children with a very skewed view of sexuality where they must forever be the submissive and on the receiving end. However that's not all - they view sex as a form of "love" and tend to believe that anyone who has sex with them is "loving them".... which may be true, but misses the whole point. On its own, sex isn't about feeling it's act of the body. What it expresses is up to the participants but these children's view is already skewed.
Two, no make it three things that piss me off about this whole deal:
1) The moral panic over pedophiles has actually put a lot of innocent people behind bars and modern witch trials were conducted with impossible charges. Read up on this here:
http://www.geocities.com/jgharris7/witchhunt.html
EDIT: Since geocities died, here's a mirror:
http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/witchhunt.html
2) The above moral panic and witch-hunt has actually retarded the cause of anti-molestation and child welfare. Most of these molestations and rape is done by relatives. The child services were finally on the right track and could do some real work... except over eager agents who saw molesters everywhere, fear struck parents and eager to please authorities (whose actions against pedophiles provides really good publicity) has gone into a insane fervor and destroyed this progress.
Now we're back to stranger-danger once again, the candyman you must beware of... which mostly bull****. Yes there are a few monsters out there, but very few. The sad truth is most child molestation is domestic, done by someone who the child trusts by people who may indeed be upstanding citizens in any other aspect and they indeed "love" the children...
...which most of the time doesn't "directly hurt", but harm the child in hidden and really sinister ways.
3) What makes the issue even more murky is that children aren't the "innocent angels" the media and American (blind) stereotypes make them out to be. Even as young as 8 they already have notions of sexuality and 12 years are guaranteed to have taken the first steps on sexuality - which is natural, they are teenagers by then! So instead "the corruption of pure little angels" what really happens is really young curios teenagers are co-opted into a games of "pleasure".
The pressures that try to suppress sexuality in teenagers doesn't help this at all, especially the religious pressures that equate masturbation and sexuality with sin. Along comes a cool "uncle" who not only dismisses the child's fears, but actively encourages them to go on, release their pressures. He may even smuggle them some porno... or show them how it's done. The child naturally gravitates toward the sole figure who (seemingly) supports them.
When they finally figure out what's happening they don't know what to do. It wasn't a strange man who abducted them and did painful things to them, but a known person they trust who slowly brought them into a relationship that's growing ever more strained and uncomfortable for the child. They're out of their league and they don't know how to get out or steer it in any direction.
Finally when things come to head everyone assumes that it hurt that they were practically "beat and literally abused". They could be. There are cases like that. Those are easier to solve (which is squicky). However in a lot of cases that child also enjoyed the sex to a degree. It offered them pleasure, but the relationship itself was very straining and put them under pressures that were ever mounting.
However everyone tells them it was WRONG! They must have SUFFERED! ...what if it wasn't painful and there were parts that they enjoyed? The stereotypes of child abuse afterwards cause a different strain on the child. Their actual experiences may differ wildly from the painful and sodomizing debauchery that everyone just "KNOWS MUST HAVE HAPPENED"... and speaks and handles them with the assumption.
Pedophiles often use the above argument to validate their "relationship". They are right to a degree: the children are rarely abused in the manner that the stereotypes assume. But the whole issue is still very damaging and the situation is fright with danger from the get go as the adults ego will inevitably leave a very strong impression on the child.
So no, I don't see how this legislation (or prosecution of lolicon material1) helps at all.
It fans the fires of the witch hunt, it draws the attention from what the real issues should be and finally it restricts the traditional freedoms of expression and press and puts more hands into overzealous authorities to bother and oppress people under made up charges.
1- Lolicon is a) drawn (no people involved or hurt) and b) usually depict teenagers (so it's ephebophile not pedophile material).
-
What are we talking about here? D-cup? C-cup?
I'm not going to feel guilty because I think a chick with small breasts is hot. Any law which makes it illegal for Milla Jovovich to star in porn has its flaws inherently exposed.
-
I admit that I don't exactly understand how this law will protect children :confused:
Or maybe I just don't understand the purpose of this law..
-
Me either.
Most of the high school chicks walking around here look like they are in there 20's while the ones that are in there 20's look like they are 12. Heck a couple years ago there were some middle school kids (6-8th grade) getting off the bus on my corner that either blossomed earlier or spent one heck of a lot on tissue paper. Guess Australia needs some more growth hormones in there food or better plastic surgeons.
-
The hell with China...Australia's the one with a ****ing scary government.
-
Sometimes I don't think the word 'rational' exists in the upper echelons of this country.
-
I think I liked Australia better when all it really had to worry about was Michael Atkinson.
-
The penny just dropped. . . . . .
Kylies never doing topless :(
My world just cracked. . .
-
This whole thing is inane. One of the things that great about porn is the scenarios in pornos that happen. Such as some hot chick getting it on with the highschool gym teacher. You can bet for that part that a porn star with small breasts and even looks young was picked and starred perfectly in the role.
This is horrible that this is all left up to interpretation in australia too. This can only lead up to the really young looking porn stars with huge ta-ta's going up to the chopping block next. With something like this left up to interpretation, there should be theoretically no stopping it with how interpretation will change and how the stakes will rise.
As far as the ban on female ejaculation in porn. I grabbed this link from the comments section of that one article that this whole thread is about. (http://www.msnaughty.com/blog/2010/01/16/the-strange-politics-of-obscene-bodily-fluids/) A ban on female urination in porn is bad? Women in porn can and do fake female ejaculation by stuff like taking a piss and whatever other creative methods. So when a female actually does ejaculate in a porn, i speculate the person evaluating the porn for the aussie public via the government or something will turn a blind eye because of speculation left up to interpretation saying something like "it's too similar to a chick taking a piss, it's not allowed". I'm guessing cleveland steamers and rusty trombones are allowed of course. For god's sake, it's porn, where everything and everyone (except underage models) will be done. I'm guessing later BSDM won't be allowed because it'll be considered abusive :lol:
Also, these are porn stars, it's in their interest to look young, and to be good looking. If australia thinks that everyones going to be watching porn that has big breasted snaggletooth, then they have another thing coming. Would you want to have sex with snaggletooth? surely no
Would you ever end up in bed with snaggletooth? this is a different scenario entirely; maybe she spiked your drink with something or just happened to have a really great personality :lol:
In other news: MAFIAA is really determined to make single mother pay $1.92million for the sins of all illegal file sharers (http://www.startribune.com/local/82828302.html), the image of muhammed is never to be shown, and australlian legislature loves all of the porn they get to watch and censor while simultaneously floggin' the log.
Raptor jesus right now has a one time offer of salvation so you can go to dino heaven.
(http://www.poormojo.org/hate/RaptorJesus.jpg)
-
Would you want to have sex with snaggletooth? surely no
Would you ever end up in bed with snaggletooth? this is a different scenario entirely; maybe she spiked your drink with something or just happened to have a really great personality :lol:
Yeah that's not shallow at all.
-
Would you want to have sex with snaggletooth? surely no
Would you ever end up in bed with snaggletooth? this is a different scenario entirely; maybe she spiked your drink with something or just happened to have a really great personality :lol:
Yeah that's not shallow at all.
The topic's about porn. Of course it's shallow. :p
-
(http://partmule.com/blog16/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/sophie-howard-12.jpg)
At least Aussies can still look at her.
Next up out of Australia: you must be taller than 5'4. Why? Because there are plenty of 16-year-old girls who are short and have DD's.
-
Would you want to have sex with snaggletooth? surely no
Would you ever end up in bed with snaggletooth? this is a different scenario entirely; maybe she spiked your drink with something or just happened to have a really great personality :lol:
Yeah that's not shallow at all.
Certainly you didn't understand me correctly in relating what i said to a porn flick.
EDIT: And certainly nothing else of what i have said about what i predict can happen with this problem pertaining to the interpretation part of it all stuck in your head? No elaborating on this thread topic either?
-
OOOOOKAAAAY...
-
Again I say, America ain't so bad compared to everywhere else (except for Norway)!
-
Yeah, just don’t take any pictures (http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/25/ruining-kids-in-order-to-save) of yourself (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/01/29/violetblue0129.DTL) if you’re under eighteen.
We’ve got plenty of crazy here too.
-
At issue in the case: Whether the U.S. Constitution permits prosecutors to charge minors who pose for nude or risque photos with child pornography. You read that correctly. In order to protect children from predators and child pornographers, the local district attorney is threatening to prosecute minors who pose for racy photos as if they were child pornographers.
Even within the context of the already hysterical overreaction to the "sexting" phenomenon, the facts in Miller are jaw-dropping. Of the three girls bringing suit, two were photographed at a slumber party wearing training bras. The third photographed herself baring her breasts, then sent the photo to a boy she'd hoped to make jealous. The girls aren't in trouble for distributing the photos, or even for taking them. They've been introduced to the criminal justice system merely for appearing in them.
WTF! Taking a picture of YOURSELF wearing a bra is a crime that can result in you being added to the sex offenders register? :confused:
That's even dumber than the original story I posted.
EDIT : Actually it's even dumber than I thought because I've just realised the implications. Flaser's post on what abuse of teenagers is like is pretty much spot on for a description I've heard of it too. In those cases the abused individual does actually have feelings for their abuser. Under these laws if any pictures were taken of the abuse it could result in the victim being prosecuted as a child pornographer.
And given the stories on that page I'll lay money on us hearing about someone actually trying to bring that case fairly soon.
-
I just hope none of you go to pools.....
kids swim there.... in bathing suits!
dun dun dun!
-
I just hope none of you go to pools.....
kids swim there.... in bathing suits!
dun dun dun!
Up next: gym banned! All participants lined up and society legally executed! Sex is unnatural!
On the other hand... "You're born naked, wet, and hungry. Then it gets worse."
-
Skumanick would later tell a gathering of students and parents that he had the authority to prosecute girls photographed on the beach in bikinis, because the minors would be dressed "provocatively."
WHAT.
WHAT.
-
If you think that 16 year olds going to the beach in bikinis are so provocative that they need to be prosecuted, you ARE a paedophile.
You need look no further than the mirror to find one.
-
Those would have to be some seriously underdeveloped 16-year-olds. :/
In all seriousness, that term needs to be used properly, regardless of how the law views it.
-
You mean the distinction between pedo- and ephebo- ?
-
Hey, Iamzack, will you be making the comments about me and 16 year old girls, or should I?
-
2/4 of them were actually 15
-
Skumanick would later tell a gathering of students and parents that he had the authority to prosecute girls photographed on the beach in bikinis, because the minors would be dressed "provocatively."
Yeah, this person's an idiot. Yet, sounds familiar to keep your women covered at all times in certain muslim countries.
-
Skumanick would later tell a gathering of students and parents that he had the authority to prosecute girls photographed on the beach in bikinis, because the minors would be dressed "provocatively."
Yeah, this person's an idiot. Yet, sounds familiar to keep your women covered at all times in certain muslim countries.
Moreso, how murders are justified for women who have been raped (in certain Muslim countries).
Never the less, topless and nude beaches, to the best of my knowledge, do NOT require a photo ID or background check. While being a "peeping tom" and taking pictures is illegal, I'm sure that plenty of those pictures will include underage minors. Yet, the photographers are (more often than not) never caught.
-
TBH, I don't care about minors without their shirts on. Everyone has the same milk glands and nipples, just because they are sometimes more pronounced on women than men doesn't make them dirty or shameful, no matter how many asshats think so.
-
TBH, I don't care about minors without their shirts on. Everyone has the same milk glands and nipples, just because they are sometimes more pronounced on women than men doesn't make them dirty or shameful, no matter how many asshats think so.
But... but... but... we can't have dirty old 16-year-old boys lusting after these innocent self-predatory 16-year-old girls! It's not right!! [/sarcasm]
-
just to bring some good and cheer to this thread of doom and dismay:
(http://bittenandbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/lucy_pinder_front_mag_4_big.jpg)
-
Not that I'd want to kill the cheer (and not that I personally mind, mind you), but I remember hearing about a policy regarding nipples in threads.
-
Not that I'd want to kill the cheer (and not that I personally mind, mind you), but I remember hearing about a policy regarding nipples in threads.
I don't see any uncovered naughty-bits; the legal stuff appears to be all covered.
-
So this is banned?
(http://armyboyz.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/shirtless_solider_muscled_crewcut.jpg)
-
just to bring some good and cheer to this thread of doom and dismay:
(http://bittenandbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/lucy_pinder_front_mag_4_big.jpg)
What I gather from her expression is that she looks a little nervous about the tentacle ****ing later in the photoshoot.
Actually this is sort of doom. Another australian model with big tits in a thread about the oppression of small breasted women being lumped into the same category as undeveloped children (their government telling you that porn with women with small breasts is obscene).
-
She's pomgolian.
-
We humies are visual creatures. We take many visual cues and mash them together. Cloths are one of those clues.
Combine that with the fact that there are people who's facial features often don't match their age (look younger or older) and some that are more or less developed...
It's not surprising to pass by a 14-year old on the street and turn your head, going "Daym! She's 14? Can't be!". I've sadly seen girls dressed as whores...why do the parents even buy them such clothes?
That said, I don't consider bikini's appropriate for kids.
So I understand how some people might feel it wrong, but good Lord! Laws like those make me think the Aussi government is descending into madness. That is madness.
Madness? THIS...IS...AUSTRALIA!!!!!
-
The bikini thing was from America actually. :p
-
Good god that looks airbrushed.
-
I’m pretty sure she’s digitally generated from the waist down.
That picture is rapidly entering the uncanny valley, and not from the usual direction.
-
I don't entirely see what's wrong with finding sixteen year old's hot anyway. By that age most sexual characteristics will have developed.
There's a huge degree of difference in ****ing a teenager and finding a teenager hot.
-
Well, 16 is more or less understandable..
12? Only if she's REALLY developed for her age, and even then it would be a HUGE stretch.
Anything less and there's something very wrong with you. That said, I really don't care much for pedo's having such impulses - as long as they don't act on them.
There are both straight and gay people who lived celibate. There's no excuse! None.
-
No excuse whatsoever. . .
-
It's an easy thing to connect age with sexual development, but sexual characteristics aren't completely... how to put this... consistent in terms of development with age. Some girls are remarkably developed even at age 13. There's a reason that thirteen was considered marriageable age in the past, you know.
Not that I'm saying it's okay to marry 13-year-olds or anything like that. However, since this is the Internet, I just know that somebody here is going to say "oh so you're saying it's okay to have sex and marry 13-year-olds". Which is not what I'm saying. At all!
It's ludicrous to consider teenagers as completely sexually disconnected anyway. Do they think that teenagers find each other hot because everybody suffers from temporary pedophilia during their teenage years?
-
No, the same reason you hold hands with girls in primary school, or go to clubs in your twenties is that you. Stick. To. Your. Own. Age. Group. . .
Or grab a cougar whenever possible.
-
What's a cougar? I'm pretty sure we're not talking 'bout the cat here.
And I guess this means I won't be buying porn in Australia. I'm not a fan of tits that can suffocate people.
-
What's a cougar? I'm pretty sure we're not talking 'bout the cat here.
And I guess this means I won't be buying porn in Australia. I'm not a fan of tits that can suffocate people.
buy porn? you're on the INTERNET
I’m pretty sure she’s digitally generated from the waist down.
That picture is rapidly entering the uncanny valley, and not from the usual direction.
wow.
but yeah, in seriousness, this is unreasonable.
if it were banning shaving south, that could be slightly understandable, or banning women whom look explicitly underage as determined by an unbiased, impossible to actually make council
-
It's not impossible to objectively determine whether a person looks prepubescent or not. Proportions and all, right?
-
But does it all fall down to "I don't like how you look" and then stigmatiozing those people?
How is that different from not liking black or gay or religious folk and moving agaisnt them, painting them as unwanted?
-
It's not impossible to objectively determine whether a person looks prepubescent or not. Proportions and all, right?
Prepubescent, possibly but teenage, no way. So what you'd be doing is drawing a dividing line right down the middle and saying that if you take a picture of someone on the wrong side you go to jail regardless of whether or not the person in the picture is over the age of consent.
-
Which is silly. Just saying that someone looking younger or older than hey are isn't really subjective. Of course, a good haircut can fix it sometimes.
-
It's not impossible to objectively determine whether a person looks prepubescent or not. Proportions and all, right?
Sure, but the puberty age is still creeping back towards 12 last I checked.
-
For sure. There are boys in my younger brother's middle-school class who are a few inches taller than I am, and I'm average height for an adult male.
-
Towards 12? Most girls I know started puberty by or around age 9-11.
-
I know a 12 yr old girl who has a rather developed chest. And she's quite embarrased about it.
-
I know a 12 yr old girl who has a rather developed chest. And she's quite embarrased about it.
And as I pointed out before, when I was was 16 I knew a ~15yo girl with at least DD's. S**t like this would be pointless; a touch of makeup and there are a LOT of minors that'd look older than 18.
-
Yeah, I know. I've seen primary school girls dress up like they're teenagers.
-
In their defence, as long as their sparing with make-up use, some of them do look quite attractive. :D
No, but this law is a piece of ****, 13 year old girls look 16, and 16 year old girls look 20. Hopefully we'll elect someone who'll 'fix' this law, in the coming October/November. But that's a pipe dream, since the Libs are the conservative ones anyway.
-
Yeah, I know. I've seen primary school girls dress up like they're teenagers.
Funny you should mention that
Miley Cyrus has a 9 year old sister who is starting her own lingerie line for kids.
Do not click on this link if you want to keep faith in humanity.
http://celebrities.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=585857&showcomments=true&rss=yes
-
Well according to the link it's actually her friend's line, and from what I can tell it's more than just undies. :P
-
Well according to the link it's actually her friend's line, and from what I can tell it's more than just undies. :P
They're "teaming up".
-
But it's called The Emily Grace Collection. Nobody knows who this Emily Grace kid is yet, it's just publicity to tag Miley's sister to it.
-
Well that doesn't negate what I said, but alright.
-
Miley's sister does dress pretty skankily. :P
-
Council estate girls. What can I say except they're all Vicky Pollards.
-
I might get roasted, but I don't really get why people hate Miley Cyrus so much. Or her sister.
... How old is her sister? 12? 11?
-
I might get roasted, but I don't really get why people hate Miley Cyrus so much. Or her sister.
... How old is her sister? 12? 11?
Nine. I think it stems from the constant influx of young tween singers. It becomes almost a social movement with little girls I think. I am not a little girl nor am I the father of one so it's speculation on my part.
-
Nine, eh. Sounds delectable.
-
:eek2:
I'm glad I can pick up on a sarcy post when
I'm tired.
-
I'm not a fan of tits that can suffocate people.
Titty-****ing :nervous:
buy porn? you're on the INTERNET
The word buy with internet and porn in the same sentence just doesn't compute.
She's Palmgolian.
I think that needed fixing.
Or grab a cougar whenever possible.
Good advice :yes:
I know a 12 yr old girl who has a rather developed chest. And she's quite embarrased about it.
Reminds me of one of my more annoying friend's little sisters in a story that involves the exact opposite. The sister was less annoying than her older brother (you can only handle him in doses), but she was cool to visit with whenever i hung out with her brother. And now, it's going to be a long time before i say hi to her again.
The reason i didn't care for saying hi to her anymore is because she tried to drag me into the forest for god knows what kind of naughty business she wanted to take place at the fair away from others last time i saw her. I was 24 at the time going like, "**** THIS!!!" in my head. She called me a chicken, and i booked it. Never has a girl made me feel extremely uncomfortable before this.
Behavior i find undesirable in women that want me is a guaranteed way to make me feel uncomfortable and scare me off very fast. What i find undesirable is really pretty simple; manipulation, trying to pull a fast one on me, and just plain old damaging/unsafe behavior/habits. The fact that she's trying to skip the rest of the bases when she's 14 with someone who's 10 years older is disturbing and dangerous, which imediatley made this not worth my time for a whole **** load of reasons. I found out from her brother later in the day (at this point i was making sure i was where she wasn't, because i don't waste a 3 day pass to the fair, motto is every day all day for fair passes) that she had a crush on me when she was 13, and i deduced that crush turned into disturbingly blatant expressed infatuation when she got to 14.
This girl has been very well developed since she was 13 at least, but she was quite the opposite of embarrassed. When she turned 14, she would find out from her older guy friends if they noticed how she's developing (this was minutes before she tried shoving me into the forest). Not a great practice for the girl who's petite with a great body and beauty at 14 (just going to be honest here, she was attractive) asking older people how they notice she's different (i didn't let her ask me the question). She's bound to get herself in trouble one day easily with situations that go way above her head, because she wanted to flirt with people 10 years or even older than that before she became an adult.
Young people often more of the time don't even think of the consequences of their actions (especially the older people they know and can inadvertantly **** over). And even less for her because of her idiot parents (nice parents, but ****ing dumb), and her lazy retard older brother (lazy and retarded is her de facto older brother) that doesn't keep tabs on her at all. I hope the girl you know stormkeeper finds some middle ground so she's more comfortable with herself while of course her not becoming the extreme opposite. In the mean time, there's an easy message i figure along the lines of "put a lid on it", "stop this crap", and "think about what you're doing" needs to be told if i ever run into forest girl again.
-
De-rail much?
-
tl;dr
looked like a high max rant about women and their indecency or something
but like i said, did not read
-
Summary: Some young girls are sluts, and maybe so is S-99
-
Not really. Basically an anecdote about a teen decidedly not embarrassed about being developed for her age.
-
Short version: teenagers are horny.
I fail to see how this is a revelation.
-
God bless nineteen year olds at schooldisco.com nights in london ;)
-
God-dammit. I need to get laid.
-
tl;dr
looked like a high max rant about women and their indecency or something
but like i said, did not read
That's what happens when you don't read all of it. You don't get all of the information, which in turn you never got the real story. As far as indecency goes, i do live in alaska. Leader in america for suicides, std's, alcoholism, and incomplete families. This takes it's toll in the dating scene where guys, not just women just don't have the ability to help themselves (and don't forget, that's if these men and women have any good standards to boot). Do i want to date someone with self damaging habits and who can't help themselves? Oh god no, people who can't help themselves never get their problems fixed and drag you down with them. People who can help themselves will get their problems fixed, this also means that the help someone else is providing is not all for nothing.
I should have said it like this in my last post, but i couldn't think of a better way until now.
Basically an anecdote about a teen decidedly not embarrassed about being developed for her age.
Exactly.
-
But why should a teen be embarrassed about being over developed for her age? Suggesting that she should be seems a bit.. iunno.. wrong.
Also I just went back and read, and I still don't get it. Is wanting sex at 14 what's so self-destructive? Or... does that only pertain to girls? Sounds like slut-shaming to me.
-
Also I just went back and read, and I still don't get it. Is wanting sex at 14 what's so self-destructive? Or... does that only pertain to girls? Sounds like slut-shaming to me.
No, wanting sex at 14 with someone who's 24 would be the self-destructive aspect of it. Things can only end badly, for both parties.
-
Not necessarily. Plenty of teenagers have crushes on older folks. Most of them just don't have enough self-esteem or courage to try at getting what they want.
-
Yeah, well it ends badly for the older party when they get convicted of statutory rape.
Funny how that works, huh?
-
Rapists of any kind don't get convicted that often. The guy would most likely be just fine.
In any case, he should use his judgement. If it's illegal, then he shouldn't have sex with her, even if she consents. If he isn't willing to take the risk, then he shouldn't take the risk. Don't see where the problem is.
-
Rapists of any kind don't get convicted that often. The guy would most likely be just fine.
In any case, he should use his judgement. If it's illegal, then he shouldn't have sex with her, even if she consents. If he isn't willing to take the risk, then he shouldn't take the risk. Don't see where the problem is.
The guy might end up being just fine, but that's not a risk worth taking at all, and quite frankly a risk that nobody should take. My judgement said that the whole situation wasn't right and that i wasn't going to be around for any risk taking. My problem was the situation she was trying to get me into that would be nothing but problems for me.
Yes a lot of teenagers do have crushes on older folks. She on the same hand has a lot of self esteem and courage to actually persue older people. Which in the same case that i hope she eventually turns down her friskiness a level or two, or she could get herself and older parties into trouble very easily because she's not thinking of the consequences of her actions (a thing young people do more often than not).
EDIT: In bringing up the whole story i wasn't really trying to explain a problem, but rather what the opposite is for girls of young age who have developed early who are embarrassed of their features. In this case, it was more a heavier weighted opposite situation i used for contrast.
-
Not necessarily. Plenty of teenagers have crushes on older folks. Most of them just don't have enough self-esteem or courage to try at getting what they want.
If by "self-esteem" or "courage" you mean "rampant stupidity" and "blatant irrationality," then I'm in full agreement.
-
Also I just went back and read, and I still don't get it. Is wanting sex at 14 what's so self-destructive? Or... does that only pertain to girls? Sounds like slut-shaming to me.
No, wanting sex at 14 with someone who's 24 would be the self-destructive aspect of it. Things can only end badly, for both parties.
There's nothing wrong with wanting it. Acting on it might be a legal problem.
-
That's kind of what I was leading to, though. I'm not denying that pretty much everyone has dreams about some unattainable older hottie or other at that age, but to treat it as enough of a legitimate prospect that you go and drag someone ten years older than you off into the woods? That's what I'd consider whuh-oh territory.
-
No, wanting sex at 14 with someone who's 24 would be the self-destructive aspect of it. Things can only end badly, for both parties.
Then you get into an "what age difference is okay" argument and since it's ultimately all arbitrary, you can no more justify that then you can that 24 wanting 34 is bad.
-
Rapists of any kind don't get convicted that often. The guy would most likely be just fine.
:wtf:
You seem to be forgetting the social implications (see: "pedo-hate") of a statutory rape charge (regardless of whether or not it actually happened), whether successfully prosecuted or not.
--
No, wanting sex at 14 with someone who's 24 would be the self-destructive aspect of it. Things can only end badly, for both parties.
Then you get into an "what age difference is okay" argument and since it's ultimately all arbitrary, you can no more justify that then you can that 24 wanting 34 is bad.
It's Age/2 + 7 (http://xkcd.com/314/). :P
--
Oh, if it hasn't been said yet (I'm too lazy to check), I'd like to welcome our friends from the Bureau. There's punch over there in the corner, feel free to help yourselves to it.
-
God knows I fancied every older woman going when I was 14. And quite rightly I got nowhere with most of them.
-
Rapists of any kind don't get convicted that often. The guy would most likely be just fine.
Horrible advice. I mean really, why did you say this?
This advice implies: go forth perform statutory rape, because you probably wont get convicted, don't think anything of it, you'll be just fine.
Iamzack, please go forth and continue enabling and motivating rapists.
-
Eh, can't put an age on love (or casual sex). The problem gets as bad as you want to let it get.
-
It's only a problem for those not getting any. Of either.
Watch Roger Dodger for the closest insight into my romantic side I can think of.
-
Exactly. Lack of sexual satisfaction, or satisfaction at all from the opposite sex drives people insane. Something we've known for a while. ;)
-
It's a vicious cycle. No female contact makes you nuts which scares females off. . . . .
Small steps. Small steps guys. Patience and proficient confidence and stay [size=14]CALM[/size] around women. Unless you're in college/university in which case get invited to a party and get drunk with them. Be funny. But not insulting. And I mean Penny funny. Not Sheldon funny.
-
I have a hard time believing it's rape *just* because the girl is 14. If she's not coerced, it's not rape. But the law says differently. Granted, it's hard to prove coercion, so maybe it's for the best.
And I did not advise "have sex with her anyway" I advised "he should use his best judgement." Most people I know do lots of illegal things. Drinking underage, smoking pot, etc.
-
The problem is that there’s a huge power differential when one member of a relationship is much older. While there may be individual exceptions, in the majority of cases it’s going to be hard for a teenager in a relationship with an adult to avoid being exploited. A relatively inexperienced teenager is going to have trouble recognizing warning signs, setting limits, expressing needs, etc., with the result that the older party may end up taking advantage of him/her even if the relationship starts with the best of intentions.
Power differentials are of course just as possible and potentially problematic in adult relationships, but there’s a point at which people are expected to be mature enough to take responsibility for any problems. Our culture generally sets that cutoff at eighteen, and though that’s somewhat arbitrary and doesn’t account for individual differences in maturity, it makes sense as a legal construction and affords some degree of protection to people whose brains are still developing and chemically predisposed to compromised judgment.
-
So basically, because it's possible to abuse the relationship, we should not have such relationships. This is A Bad Argument as it's possible to abuse any human relationship.
Our culture has also begun moving the age of consent backwards again and in many areas it's now 16 or 17, proving the fallacy of any age-based argument when dealing with individual development.
It's Age/2 + 7 (http://xkcd.com/314/). :P
Which is also arbitrary, and so no more arguable than any other method of measurement!
-
Any relationship can be abused, but when the probability and ease of abuse rise sharply, the advisability of the relationship drops sharply.
Use analogue measurements, not digital ones, please.
-
Our culture has also begun moving the age of consent backwards again and in many areas it's now 16 or 17, proving the fallacy of any age-based argument when dealing with individual development.
But there in lies the problem. If you're not going to declare an arbitrary age limit how do you propose to limit things?
AFAIK pretty much every human culture in history has a coming of age for at least one of the sexes. A point at which a child is considered an adult and therefore capable of making their own choices. We do that for voting, drinking, smoking, gambling and a whole host of other choices. Yes, there are individuals who are ready before that age and others who still aren't after it. But I can't think of a workable alternative so if you can I'd love to hear it.
-
But I can't think of a workable alternative so if you can I'd love to hear it.
There isnt' one yet, admittedly, but it can't be long before our increasing ability to mechanize things gives us an option for some kind of empirical testing.
-
That holds across all individuals and isn't rooted in a fundamentally arbitrary moral system?
Doubtful!
-
That holds across all individuals and isn't rooted in a fundamentally arbitrary moral system?
You're the one familar with social sciences, you tell me. :P
-
The only scientifically determinable 'age of consent' is when the individual starts exhibiting sexual behavior.
That can be as early as...well, infancy.
It's going to remain a social decision, and therefore an arbitrary/utilitarian one. I believe Rian laid out the reasons why an arbitrary standard may be useful, and what its weaknesses are.
-
I might get roasted, but I don't really get why people hate Miley Cyrus so much. Or her sister.
Who?
-
Google, my son. Bunch of kids who aren't good role models to young 'uns. Miley may be a teenager, but the fact is, she's in the spotlight, and she's a role model. So she should behave like one.
-
Underage aside. The level of independence affects 'who wears the trousers' more than whos oldest. By independent I mean financially and confidencewise.