Staredit Network

I dont know what the law is but if it is that if a man gets an erection it makes it legal than thats dumb! It shouldnt be that way, it is so easy for a man to get an erection.

I never said that you were a pedophile.  I said that you, in your post, had said something that supports pedophilia which you did.  From what I can understand, you seem to like to misinterpret what people say.  You also seem to criticize people if they get off of where you want the topic to be.  By the way, pedophile is spelled with "ph" as opposed to "f."

My challenge still stands: Please post one of your posts and my response and show how it is either "half-assed" or irrelevant.
[right][snapback]593508[/snapback][/right]

I dont know what the law is but if it is that if a man gets an erection it makes it legal than thats dumb! It shouldnt be that way, it is so easy for a man to get an erection.

You accused me of being a pedofile by saying that I made excuses for it. You should really try to avoid telling people you dont know that they are a pedofile.

also never said that people who do unnatural things arent christians.

And yet I explained it in a previous post.

In cases of female teachers having an affair with younger boys, the boys wanted to do it because they are all horny.

It is Much harder for a woman to rape a man. By law if the man gets an erection, it is not rape. To put it simply; If a girl gets you hard, you are ,apparently, enjoying yourself.

That's an unnecessary way to extrapolate a conclusion.  If someone is making excuses for an action, that doesn't mean they commit that action, just that they have supported it.  If I make excuses for homosexuality, it doesn't mean I engage in homosexual activity myself.  I think you are trying too hard to be insulted by me.  Once again, I am not calling you a pedophile, I merely said that in your post you made excuses for the act of pedophilia between an adult woman and a male child.
[right][snapback]593659[/snapback][/right]

But you accused me of making excuses for pedofilia when I am no where even close to it. Excuses is a way of defending one self from a accusation.

In one form, yes.  However, in the case that I was using it, it was just pointing out a bit of hypocrisy as opposed to labeling you as a pedophile.  It is incredibly easy to make excuses for another person's action, even if you do not do the action you are defending.
[right][snapback]593683[/snapback][/right]

There is only one form. Don't say I make excuses. I wasnt even defending pedofillia.

You do make excuses and you were defending pedophilia.  You said, in your post, that "In cases of female teachers having an affair with younger boys, the boys wanted to do it because they are all horny."  In your post you seem to be implying that it is perfectly fine for teachers to have sex with their male students because "they are all horny."
[right][snapback]593736[/snapback][/right]

Yes, I think that most people get mature enough to make decisions before 18, though some may not unitl long after that age. I think 18 is too high.

In regards to the age of 18, it's just an age that has been chosen, although I don't think it's very good to set a standard age for when you have good judgment. It all depends on your level of maturity. I think something like a test of maturity would be a better method than a certain age.

If you were 15 and you had a hot teacher, and she was trying to get it on with you would you have sex with her? Probably, but thats why we have consent laws because they doubt our judgement which is pretty cloudy if your less than 18 and thus call it rape because it should be.
[right][snapback]593916[/snapback][/right]

I agree, Anyone want an A.  I dont think I would beacuse it would be really wierd.  Though I would probably enjoy it if I did, then again I think that the age 18 is too much of a big deal, I think that people are plenty smart enough under that age to make the right decision.
[right][snapback]593928[/snapback][/right]

I'm fairly certain that if I had a hot teacher that wanted to have sex with me I'd go for it, although I believe afterwards it'd be fairly awkward .  In regards to the age of 18, it's just an age that has been chosen, although I don't think it's very good to set a standard age for when you have good judgment.  It all depends on your level of maturity.  I think something like a test of maturity would be a better method than a certain age.
[right][snapback]593930[/snapback][/right]

I don't really.  I mean sure, you might get kids that are mature enough before they reach 18, but it is generally a safer age than, let's say, 16.  I think that be setting the age high you can help prevent some of the things that you don't want to happen.
[right][snapback]593989[/snapback][/right]

Definitely. In fact, I think the same thing should be done not only for sexual consent but for driving, drinking, smoking and voting. With sexual consent, however, there should be a minimum age of somewhere around 13 or 14, because before that your body is physically not ready for it, however much your mind may be ready.
[right][snapback]594008[/snapback][/right]

I guess these people are making excuses too, right? It's common sense, any male would do it with a hot teacher because boys can't control their sexual desires at that age because of hormones.

Like what? Aids? Diseases? STD? That's why people use condoms. And I'm sure the boys would have been ready for it since most of them masturabate.

I think its the opposite. I dont think hormones can control your mind. I think the physical self is the one with the desires.

What are you talking about?  They aren't making excuses, they're generally talking about how the judgment of underage males is impaired and thus it should be called rape.  In no case would I have had sex with any of my teachers.
Condoms have a pretty high failure rate.  Basically, the age is there as a result of the Christian values that have invaded the judicial system.  The 18-year-old age of consent is merely a way to prevent sex before marriage.  That being said, I don't think that people under 18 (as that's about the age people graduate high school) can really raise a child without sabotaging the life of themselves and their child.  I'm not talking about if someone is ready for sex physically because I know that they are, but I'm talking about a form of regulation that helps prevent people and their children from having low-quality lives.  There is no way to prevent an STD from being transmitted other than abstinence, and it's a fallacy to assume that a condom could stop it all.
I don't know what you're talking about there.  It's been scientifically proven that hormones control your sexual desires.  There is absolutely no debate as to whether hormones control sexual urges as they do.
[right][snapback]594071[/snapback][/right]

And for the hormones, where have you been? There are no debates because they know hormones control it. It's called puberty.

I think its the opposite. I dont think hormones can control your mind. I think the physical self is the one with the desires.

Condoms dont have high rates of failure. It only fails if you use lube that contains oil because it heats up the condom and eventually breaks it.

Out of 100. I doubt 8.08 is a high rate.

I guess these people are making excuses too, right? It's common sense, any male would do it with a hot teacher because boys can't control their sexual desires at that age because of hormones.

Out of 100. I doubt 8.08 is a high rate.

Hormones or no hormones, if a teenage boy knows he has a good reason not to do it, he should be able to keep himself from doing it. The sex drive isn't that strong.

In terms of condoms, yes, it is. It's about 1 in 12, which is plenty high enough.
[right][snapback]594257[/snapback][/right]

Anyways, hormones are stronger than the mind during puberty. I never said sex drive.

.083 is high?