OK I just have to ask...

Garybob · 2005-11-18 00:38:33

First of all, it was you who claimed that it's 'illegal' in the USA. It isn't. Once someone is of legal age, there are no laws about the permitted age-DIFFERENCE.

Secondly, I really don't like this constant 'should'. It's neither for you nor for Elmo to say what 'should' be the goal, whether or not one 'should' be mature enough. Quite simply, it's none of your affair.

Thirdly, you have no idea what other teenage boys think about. Some couldn't care who the woman is, others do. You extrapolate from your own feelings to those of everyone else, which is not very ... how shall we say ... sound.

Salsa:

I sense some hostility in your post. Oddly, it is akin to the sort of hostility one would expect from a member of a member of NAMBA.

Pardon me for disagreeing with you analysis but I pointed out that there are laws in the U.S. that forbid sexual relations between a minor and an adult. For your information, that is true in every State. Now, some States differ in their description of what age constitutes a "minor", but neverhteless, sex with a "minor" is illegal.

As to extrapolating, I seem to recall some extrapolations of your own, i.e. many men's view about women being seen as soft; many men finding it a turn on to see a woman satisfied, etc... Unless you've done some scientific field study or forensic research of some sort, I'd try to stop attacking people who disagree with your point of view if I were you. It is really revealing if you know what I mean.

Some people feel that their perspective is the only one that should be heard. Characteristic of a true hard-core leftist. Make you a deal Salsa, I won't bother you and you don't bother me. Peace man....Peace!

salsasalsa · 2005-11-18 19:12:39

Garybob wrote:

I sense some hostility in your post. Oddly, it is akin to the sort of hostility one would expect from a member of a member of NAMBA.

I have no idea what a namba is; but for someone who goes around telling other people what they 'should' do (you), to accuse someone else of 'hostility' because they refuse to be dictated to is the height of a pot/kettle syndrome.

Garybob wrote:

Pardon me for disagreeing with you analysis but I pointed out that there are laws in the U.S. that forbid sexual relations between a minor and an adult. For your information, that is true in every State. Now, some States differ in their description of what age constitutes a "minor", but neverhteless, sex with a "minor" is illegal.

It's you who is attacking me for disagreeing with you. "Minor" and "teenager" is not the same thing at all. Where the law specifies 17 as the age of adulthood, it is NOT illegal for a teenager aged 17+ to have sex. Or does 17+ no longer count as a teenager? We were talking about teenagers, not 'minors'. You are the one who suddenly brought minors into the equation; nobody else suggested any such thing.

Garybob wrote:

As to extrapolating, I seem to recall some extrapolations of your own, i.e. many men's view about women being seen as soft; many men finding it a turn on to see a woman satisfied, etc... Unless you've done some scientific field study or forensic research of some sort, I'd try to stop attacking people who disagree with your point of view if I were you. It is really revealing if you know what I mean.

It certainly is highly revealing of you. You are the one attacking others. I never, not once, 'extrapolated' anything. Do you know what a strawman is? It's a demagogic method of attributing to your opponent something he never said. I stated that many men find the above a turn on, and I stand by that. And I do not need to conduct a field study merely because you are telling me to do so.

Garybob wrote:

Some people feel that their perspective is the only one that should be heard. Characteristic of a true hard-core leftist. Make you a deal Salsa, I won't bother you and you don't bother me. Peace man....Peace!

ROFL. Me a hardcore leftist? You really need to lay off the hard stuff. And stop dictating to me what to think. And look up motes and beams.

Tellin · 2005-11-18 19:24:54

Please folks, let us not forget that the true meaning of the word teenager is to indicate that the person is at an age that ends with the suffix 'teen' ie: thirTEEN, sixTEEN nineTEEN. It is an old, archaic term. Perhaps the proper word for this discussion should be 'adolescent' which is a more modern term meaning pre-adult.

Kdogg2 · 2005-11-19 09:00:47

salsasalsa wrote:

Kdogg2 wrote:
Women are seen as soft
I thought this one-dimensional view of women, which is really a product of prudish Victorian society, has died out long ago. Most men (and women) I know value a strong, assertive woman.

Sorry I'm late, I haven't checked the forum in awhile LOL.

Whoa salsasalsa, you've read a whole between the lines of five simple words. My statement of women being soft, had nothing to do with any preceived notion of the capablitites or possiblilites women in the world. Women are generally seen as the more compassionate sex. They are more intune with their feelings and emotions. Men are not, usually. That being said, these qualities do not impede a womens ability to be strong and assertive, actually they provide a base to improve in these areas.

My thinking is far from one dimensional.

salsasalsa · 2005-11-19 12:17:39

Kdogg2 wrote:

salsasalsa wrote:
Kdogg2 wrote:
Women are seen as soft
I thought this one-dimensional view of women, which is really a product of prudish Victorian society, has died out long ago. Most men (and women) I know value a strong, assertive woman.
They are more intune with their feelings and emotions.

Quite untrue as a universal statement. We have been brainwashed to believe this. Women TALK more about their feelings, yes; but that is far from proving that they are 'in tune' with them. A lot of the time, what I hear is simply regurgitated articles on 'relationships' and 'emotions' from weekend magazines, published purely because some hack needs to fill column-inches and the publisher and editor think it'll sell the magazine - which they need to do in order (a) to attract advertising, (b) to keep their jobs as a result of the advertising revenue coming in.

Repeating such cliches as one sees in 99.9% of those articles is not being 'in tune' with anything, except with the cliches of the age.

Jo · 2005-11-20 23:33:50

Ich glaubs ja nicht wie manche Leute drauf sind... *wortlos* *kopfschüttel*

Kdogg2 · 2005-11-21 00:00:35

salsasalsa wrote:

Kdogg2 wrote:
salsasalsa wrote:
I thought this one-dimensional view of women, which is really a product of prudish Victorian society, has died out long ago. Most men (and women) I know value a strong, assertive woman.
They are more intune with their feelings and emotions.
Quite untrue as a universal statement. We have been brainwashed to believe this. Women TALK more about their feelings, yes; but that is far from proving that they are 'in tune' with them. A lot of the time, what I hear is simply regurgitated articles on 'relationships' and 'emotions' from weekend magazines, published purely because some hack needs to fill column-inches and the publisher and editor think it'll sell the magazine - which they need to do in order (a) to attract advertising, (b) to keep their jobs as a result of the advertising revenue coming in.
Repeating such cliches as one sees in 99.9% of those articles is not being 'in tune' with anything, except with the cliches of the age.

Dude, I feel sorry for the women that you know of or are talking about, because the women in my life aren't as confused as you have them to be. My sister has two degrees, dentistry and law. Shes had her run ins with bad boyfriends and such, but she's kind and understanding. People come to her for advice and she listens. She will tell you in a heart beat what she wants, and then goes about achieving it. My girlfriend is the same way. You are mistaking "soft" as being weak. There are always exceptions to every rule, but your the one selling womnen short , not me.

salsasalsa · 2005-11-21 10:57:21

Kdogg2 wrote:

Dude, I feel sorry for the women that you know of or are talking about, because the women in my life aren't as confused as you have them to be. My sister has two degrees, dentistry and law. Shes had her run ins with bad boyfriends and such, but she's kind and understanding. People come to her for advice and she listens. She will tell you in a heart beat what she wants, and then goes about achieving it. My girlfriend is the same way. You are mistaking "soft" as being weak. There are always exceptions to every rule, but your the one selling womnen short , not me.

LOL. Do you have the slightest idea what a pathetic little tosser you are?

PC elmo · 2005-11-21 18:37:54

????? ENOUGH already!!!

As a regular reader of the forum, I don't think I'm alone in asserting that petty insults really degrade the experience.

PC elmo · 2005-11-21 19:16:30

Back to the subject(s) (please) :

Ceredwyn wrote:

johnnyd wrote:
I don't believe the female body is inherently any more attractive than the male's. In fact, again, I think this is a matter of the conditioning that we are exposed to in our society? Anybody agree?
Speaking as a female, I agree completely. I am always a little saddened when men describe their bodies as 'ugly' or 'awkward' - I do quite a lot of life drawing, which involves nude models of both sexes, and both have a lot to recommend them in texture, proportion, and muscletone from an aesthetic point of view. Believe me, there are many, many women who find the male form attractive, and naturally enough, many men as well. I am definitely glad that we have moved past the Grecian ideal of the masculine form being automatically superior in beauty and form, but would like to see us heading towards a general appreciation of both sexes. This is one of the reasons Beautiful Agony is such a pleasant site. The ideals of beauty have taken many forms down through the centuries, and the hope of one that is approachable for all is a wonderful thing.

I think it's good to point out that there ever was a Grecian ideal of the masculine form being automatically superior in beauty and form; with today's "conditioning" and its emphasis on the (often unrealistic) female figure, it's easy for many of us to forget how recent in history those leanings really are. And, reviewing past standards of beauty further highlights how artificially constructed the present-day commercial ones are, as well as how pervasive.

This thread began with observation that many of the female contributors to this site reveal in their confessions, among other things, comfort with being sexual with other women, including early orgasmic experiences with other women. This seems to me to be more than just a fad, and to have more to do with (new) standards of beauty than with women being conditioned to think like men.

As a man, I have no problem viewing women in general as more beautiful than men, even while acknowledging that men and their bodies are not ugly or awkward in themselves. Then again, I think I've always had an affinity for females that extends beyond the sexual -- most of my closest friends have been female. I can understand that in an age when what defined a man was spending most of his life in an army, in the company of other men, such men came to value greatly the company of other men. So naturally, many women nowadays come to value each others' company more than the companionship of the males in their lives, who don't know and don't care to learn about what they (the women) really like and want. It all seems to come back to sensitivity, and to preference for authenticity. Or at least, preference for fantasy with which women can relate.

Yeah, remember all the comments and discussions about the shortcomings of pornography in general? Ok, maybe I'm trying to squeeze too much into one post here, but I really do see a lot of connections. If we really are doomed as a species, it's not because of lack of interest in male-female sexual relations. It's because of some inability to be honest with ourselves and to listen, to truly listen, to what others actually value and desire.

Last edited by PC elmo (2005-11-21 19:19:30)

Kdogg2 · 2005-11-22 09:53:19

This is my last post on the subject (Sorry Elmo).

Amazing salsasalsa, you try to make yourself out to be so all knowing, yet when someone holds a quasi intellectual debate with you, you resort to the low ground to make your point.

And you called me a tosser, thats rich!!! , LOL

I'm wrong, your right, what ever!

PC elmo · 2005-11-22 17:58:24

Well, no hard feelings. I think I'm about done with these attempts, myself.

Maybe for someone else, then: What the hezmada's a "tosser," anyway?

Last edited by PC elmo (2005-11-22 17:59:03)

salsasalsa · 2005-11-22 19:02:23

Kdogg2 wrote:

This is my last post on the subject (Sorry Elmo).
Amazing salsasalsa, you try to make yourself out to be so all knowing, yet when someone holds a quasi intellectual debate with you, you resort to the low ground to make your point.
And you called me a tosser, thats rich!!! , LOL

Errr... this, from someone whose 'quasi-intellectual debate' is:
"Dude, I feel sorry for the women that you know".

I'd hate to think what your non-intellectual discourse is like ... probably quite unprintable.

You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. I never claimed to be all-knowing: you must be confusing me with yourself. I merely stated what my experience has been. You have a problem with that? And why do you think that I give a tinker's cuss?

Garybob · 2005-11-22 23:22:36

salsasalsa wrote:
Kdogg2 wrote:
salsasalsa wrote:

I thought this one-dimensional view of women, which is really a product of prudish Victorian society, has died out long ago. Most men (and women) I know value a strong, assertive woman.

They are more intune with their feelings and emotions.

Quite untrue as a universal statement. We have been brainwashed to believe this. Women TALK more about their feelings, yes; but that is far from proving that they are 'in tune' with them. A lot of the time, what I hear is simply regurgitated articles on 'relationships' and 'emotions' from weekend magazines, published purely because some hack needs to fill column-inches and the publisher and editor think it'll sell the magazine - which they need to do in order (a) to attract advertising, (b) to keep their jobs as a result of the advertising revenue coming in.

Repeating such cliches as one sees in 99.9% of those articles is not being 'in tune' with anything, except with the cliches of the age.

Dude, I feel sorry for the women that you know of or are talking about, because the women in my life aren't as confused as you have them to be. My sister has two degrees, dentistry and law. Shes had her run ins with bad boyfriends and such, but she's kind and understanding. People come to her for advice and she listens. She will tell you in a heart beat what she wants, and then goes about achieving it. My girlfriend is the same way. You are mistaking "soft" as being weak. There are always exceptions to every rule, but your the one selling womnen short , not me.

-----Salsa

Geez, Talk about pot/kettle syndrome. Salsa, you're the one on the attack. And not just me. Seems you're after just about everyone here. What is your deal man?

erdna · 2005-11-23 05:59:27

Salsasalsa and Garybob, there is no cause for panic! It just a forum. And remember, big sister, unseen and mysterious is watching your writing, guess who?

Garybob · 2005-11-23 20:23:33

Erdna:

You are right. Will simply hit the big "IGNORE" button from now on.

salsasalsa · 2005-11-23 22:57:34

Garybob wrote:

Geez, Talk about pot/kettle syndrome. Salsa, you're the one on the attack. And not just me. Seems you're after just about everyone here. What is your deal man?

LOL. This from someone who writes:
"Dude, I feel sorry for the women that you know".
You are one sad individual.

Garybob · 2005-11-24 08:26:34

Okay, now I am convinced that this guy is either on some hallucinagenic drugs or just some lonely kid looking to get attention by pissing people off. Very AOL.

Kdogg2 made that comment, not me. But since you mentioned it.....I do. Nothing like a schizoid to spread bile. I feel bad for your family. Must be a real challenge to have a bone-head sharing the blood line. My final response to you, you nut case is...JUST SAY NO!

jamesd · 2005-11-25 09:40:45

Ruby, I think that your proposed reeducation program would be quite popular. Perhaps you should more seriously consider gathering like-minded women and organising it?

Garybob, you may find visiting http://ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm useful, since it offers guidance to all about the minimum legal age for sex between a young person and a 101 year old. 16 is the most common age in the US.

Garybob · 2005-11-25 18:29:22

James, thank you! Useful information indeed.

salsasalsa · 2005-11-25 21:41:14

Garybob wrote:

Okay, now I am convinced that this guy is either on some hallucinagenic drugs or just some lonely kid looking to get attention by pissing people off. Very AOL.
Kdogg2 made that comment, not me. But since you mentioned it.....I do. Nothing like a schizoid to spread bile. I feel bad for your family. Must be a real challenge to have a bone-head sharing the blood line. My final response to you, you nut case is...JUST SAY NO!

LOL. At least you know yourself, you sad, infantile, deranged halfwit.

Jo · 2005-11-27 22:24:58

STOP it! Both of you!

This is a discussion board and not a exchange forum for snearwords.

Thanks.

#26 2005-11-18 00:38:33

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#27 2005-11-18 19:12:39

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#28 2005-11-18 19:24:54

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#29 2005-11-19 09:00:47

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#30 2005-11-19 12:17:39

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#31 2005-11-20 23:33:50

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#32 2005-11-21 00:00:35

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#33 2005-11-21 10:57:21

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#34 2005-11-21 18:37:54

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#35 2005-11-21 19:16:30

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#36 2005-11-22 09:53:19

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#37 2005-11-22 17:58:24

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#38 2005-11-22 19:02:23

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#39 2005-11-22 23:22:36

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#40 2005-11-23 05:59:27

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#41 2005-11-23 20:23:33

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#42 2005-11-23 22:57:34

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#43 2005-11-24 08:26:34

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#44 2005-11-25 09:40:45

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#45 2005-11-25 18:29:22

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#46 2005-11-25 21:41:14

Re: OK I just have to ask...

#47 2005-11-27 22:24:58

Re: OK I just have to ask...

Board footer