Minigin. Do you seriously not understand our argument? It's not that everything you're saying is wrong. It isn't. Children can be harmed. But rather, who are you to tell a parent that they shouldn't allow their 15yo to have sex? Seriously. For whatever reason you seem to view sex with distaste and seemingly as something...for lack of a better word, evil. Others don't have this view of sex m8.

It's morally wrong to you but perfectly natural for others. Just because you see it as something that can cause harm doesn't mean others see it this way and therefore your view can't (and shouldn't) be enforced upon the others

Like morel just said, basing laws on personal morals is retarded as fuck

well then im afraid its time to reveal my true nature.

i am a serial child molester. i believe that having sex with children under the age of 16 who consent is not wrong at all. i am perfectly gentle with them and never force them to do anything they dont want to. why should you stop me?


how dare you impose your rules on me?!?!?!?!

I'll concede it does come down to proportionality. And, proportionally speaking a 20 yo is vastly more likely to be able to abuse and manipulate a person under 16. Key word, vastly.

Again i'll concede that with a 15yo having sex with a 16yo the same thing can happen. However, the chances of such are vastly lower. The power imbalances between teens of that age are in general similar. Yes, this is not always the case but like any law it is based on proportionality. At the very least the chances of it happening a low enough that it's not an area that the law should be getting involved in. It's only when harm is at least the probable outcome & that the harm is serious enough that the law should be stepping in.

Happy Minigin?

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME! SEX IS NOT WRONG!!!!!


CHILDREN CAN NOT CONSENT TO SEX FOR VERY GOOD REASONS!!!!!

SEX IS NOT JUST FUN!!! IT IS RISKY. YOU MUST BE ABLE TO COPE WITH THESE SITUATIONS. PARENTS CAN NOT PALM OFF THIS RESPONSIBILITY!!!! LEGAL PERSONHOOD IS VERY VERY MESSY BETWEEN THE AGES YOU ARE SO RETARDEDLY ARGUING CHILDREN CAN HAVE SEX. IF THEY CAN HAVE SEX AT THAT AGE THEN WHY IS THERE A PRESUMPTION THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT MENS REQUIREMENTS FOR MOST CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS



NO MATTER HOW MUCH STRAW YOU FILL THIS SCARECROW WITH YOU ARE NOT GOING TO WIN AN ARGUMENT THAT SAYS CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE SEX BETWEEN THE AGES 12-16.


ps. going to a friends now to eat nachos. bbl later, and im waiting for you to tell me why i cant sleep with 12 year olds.

"20 yo is vastly more likely to be able to abuse and manipulate a person under 16"


please elaborate on this because i completely disagree with your reasoning, i put it to you that a 21 yo is capable of having the same mens as a 16 yo.


will bbl

I'm not sure if you're fucking with me. I've been around 16 year olds while I was 20 at parties, I can tell you now, they're fucking ridiculously easy to manipulate if you wanted to, simply because I'm (most 20 yo's, obviously not yourself) mature enough to read them. In general teens around the same age as them can't do this...

some can.

totally agreeing with the manipulation thing btw. moon of my life went as far as to say girls around 12-14 should spend those three years locked in a padded room with a lot of great books and nothing else. .. and yes girls specifically, because face it, 14yo boys are much less mature than girls of the same age.


maybe the only mens requirement is menstruation. get it? ohoho discuss

i like how a christian virgin is typing all of this out