I wish I was that pimp.
Printable View
ooooooooooooooooookay then :confused:
Reminds me of a Van Halen song...
He will be a God at his school from now on.
Reminds me of the 13 year old about 8 years ago (I think) that had sex with his teacher who was in her 30s, and she got pregnant and they decided to have the kid. It was big news at the time but I can't remember many of the details anymore.
she's fit, i wish i was doing that at 14 rather then raving about pokemon and pannin football stickers.
See above post :)
that kid is ahead of the game.
That's quite repulsive and very sad if you ask me.
Still, I'd warrant he got an automatic A for the year.
Take care all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gokufusionss1
yehmetoo
Well this kid is gonna be the most popular guy in school. I dont feel bad for him, but the teacher should have known better and if she felt the urge to have sex she should have went to a bar and picked up somebody of a legal age.
- The CaptainQuote:
Still, I'd warrant he got an automatic A for the year.
A+ ;)
Quote "...she was attracted to him because having sex with him was not allowed."
Just goes to show that forbidden fruit is always the...er, juiciest. ;)
The original case was the Mary Kay Letournou (I think that's how you spell it) who actually taught some of my friends, she was in my area. That situation is extremely convoluted, and the kid (who is around 20, I think) has been saying several things, and I'm not quite sure what exactly his true feelings are.
that poor teacher...
There is no where in that article that says that the teacher admits to doing any of these things that she's been accused of and until she's proven guilty, I would have to say she's innocent. This boy and his cousin probably think that it would be funny to get someone framed and it doesn't take much to frame someone like a teacher. It's not too difficult to know if or where someone has tattoos or birthmarks and that should not be held as proof. Neither should knowing what her apartment looks like.
there is no way she will get off for this though. in america, the term "innocent until proven guilty" is a joke.
All this "That kid's cool now!" stuff is rather disgusting. If they really did have sex, then the woman is some kind of deranged child molester, and the kid is a victim of abuse. What effect is all that going to have on that boy? God only knows how screwed up he's going to be. What if they'd produced a child together?
it may be disgusting, but its the truth. i do imagine he is gonna be pretty popular with lots of people also i dont consider her to be a child molester. it might be disgusting and wrong, but if they were both consenting than i dont consider her a "child molester" unfortunately, we have these stupid laws which make her a statuatory rapist and now her life is ruined becuase she had sex with a CONSENTING child. sorry, but i jsut think that is wrong wrong wrong...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
OK, I'm gonna go convince a 6-year-old to give me his bike, then I'll sell it on ebay. After all, if he consents, it's OK.
Fortunately the law protects minors. A minor is unable to give consent for certain things.
speaking as a former 14 year old boy with the labedo of an randy porn star i can honestly say i would of loved to get squishy with my 23 year old teacher.
"OK, I'm gonna go convince a 6-year-old to give me his bike, then I'll sell it on ebay. After all, if he consents, it's OK.
Fortunately the law protects minors. A minor is unable to give consent for certain things."
there is a slight difference between a six year old, and a fourteen year old.
Not according to the law.
Well, you two seem to be taking different definitions of "consent". It's true in America that people who are underage don't have a right to give their consent to much of anything. But a 14-year old is better informed than a six-year old. The 14-year old boy knew what he was doing, and he and the teacher both knew it was illegal. What I believe nik0tine is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that he wanted to have sex with his teacher. She didn't force him into it. And, the article wasn't exactly in-depth. We don't know who started the relationship, if it even happened.
I can trade a toddler a nice piece of candy for his bike. I bet the toddler might even WANT the candy. Candy is nice after all. Fact is that what the child wants is irrelevant; that's the whole point of the law. Children are too ignorant to know what they want. Teenagers are less ignorant than 6-year-olds, but they are as uncapable of consent as a toddler according to the law. They are NOT adults. They are half-berserk with hormones anyways. They are often unable to fully understand the consequences of their actions. The 14-year-old probably did WANT to have sex, because he was too ignorant to see how completely wrong it was to do it. It doesn't matter who started the relationship; the consent of the adult was necessary, and if a 14-year-old is propositioning an adult, it's up to the adult to say no. Does a 14-year-old understand what it means to be a parent? Does a 14-year-old understand that having sex can kill you? Does a 14-year-old understand the emotional baggage that comes along with sex, or SHOULD come along? Maybe a few 14-year-olds do; enough don't that it's a good thing to create a law to protect them.
Yes, I do understand that, and I happen to agree. My sister-in-law has a two year old (she's 16 now) and honestly it hasn't made her grow up much. I was just making the points that you didn't seem to understand what nik0tine was saying, and that nobody really knows if the teacher really did have sex with her student. I believe very strongly in "innocent until proven guilty". But speaking in hypothetical terms (ie the kid isn't just telling stories to get the attention), either way the teacher is guilty, but not completely at fault. If she came on to him, he also had the chance to say no. Now imagine if the situation was reversed though. What if it was a male 23-year old teacher that came on a 14-year old female student? Where a 14-year old boy gets a "cool" reputation, a 14-year old girl would end up with the reputation of being a slut. Or she would have to say that the teacher forced himself on her, which would make him a rapist.
Where a 14-year old boy gets a "cool" reputation, a 14-year old girl would end up with the reputation of being a slut. Or she would have to say that the teacher forced himself on her, which would make him a rapist.
__________________
the teacher is still a rapist even if she is a girl. i dont agree with statutory rape laws, i think we should protect kids from child molesters and the like, but statuatory rape laws dont do that, in my opinion.
and unne, i think you give children, both young and old, far less credit than they deserve.
"I can trade a toddler a nice piece of candy for his bike. I bet the toddler might even WANT the candy. Candy is nice after all. Fact is that what the child wants is irrelevant; that's the whole point of the law. Children are too ignorant to know what they want. Teenagers are less ignorant than 6-year-olds, but they are as uncapable of consent as a toddler according to the law. They are NOT adults. They are half-berserk with hormones anyways. They are often unable to fully understand the consequences of their actions. The 14-year-old probably did WANT to have sex, because he was too ignorant to see how completely wrong it was to do it. It doesn't matter who started the relationship; the consent of the adult was necessary, and if a 14-year-old is propositioning an adult, it's up to the adult to say no. Does a 14-year-old understand what it means to be a parent? Does a 14-year-old understand that having sex can kill you? Does a 14-year-old understand the emotional baggage that comes along with sex, or SHOULD come along? Maybe a few 14-year-olds do; enough don't that it's a good thing to create a law to protect them."
first, i dont beleive any six year old is stupid enough to trade his or her bike for candy.
does a fourteen year old understand what it means to be a parent? no. do you understand what it means to be a parent? unless you are or ahve been a parent the answer is no. i think taht is completely irrelevant.
does a 14 year old understand that sex can kill you? yes. everybody these days knows about STD's and the like, and for good reason.
does a 14 year old understand the emotional baggage that comes along with sex...?
some do some dont, and for many it wont matter, but whether or not it does matter they will get over it. i dont think sex will destroy many peoples lives unless its a rape or something.
Aw man. This is the second forum I've seen this link on, and I saw similar comments about it.
Sad isn't it? :(Quote:
Where a 14-year old boy gets a "cool" reputation, a 14-year old girl would end up with the reputation of being a slut. Or she would have to say that the teacher forced himself on her, which would make him a rapist.
...she kinda turned herself in...Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeza
That still doesn't mean that she's guilty. If you knew that you were going to be arrested for something, even if you're innocent, turning yourself in instead of waiting for them to come and get you will work in your favour when you end up in court. She could be guilty, but just because she turned herself in doesn't mean that she is.
you know, she's 23. That's not very old, is it? many people still aren't mature at that age. who knows-she might be a 14 year-old living in a 23 year-old body. I wouldn't make my judgement based on the ages.
although, being around that age myself, i do agree that most of the people my age, especially guys, are just walking talking raging hormones.
:D
its this sort of arrogant sounding, dertiministic, ageist, stuff that annoys me. i think most 14 year olds can understand the implications of sex, so as long as they consent its fine. its only a sexual assult if one of the two things above is missing, unless there still a child (ie below 13) and a teenager. because as a teenager u are quite able 2 make your own descions. to imply that they are still children or to imply that because your an adult u can automaticalry make desicions better then a teenager is just naive. this teacher should only get the sack 4 breaking teacher ethics, not unapprioprate jail time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Unne
the law should understand the difference between a consenting relationship and sexual assult and rape.
ok maybe i went a bit overboard over Unne,s comment. but i do think it was a bit too insulting to teenagers intellegence. serious question: are you like in your thirtys and cant remember being a teenager?
"ok maybe i went a bit overboard over Unne,s comment. but i do think it was a bit too insulting to teenagers intellegence. serious"
i know what you mean. i hate it when kids, even little kids, dont get enough credit. sigmond frueid (sp?) even said "what an alarming and stark contrast between the radiating intelligence of the child, and the utter stupidity of the average adult" yet children are viewed as inferior. people are stupid enough to mistake naievity(sp?) with stupidity. i believe children are just as smart as any adult, they jsut have less experiance.
Dr Unne might not be in his thirty's, but I remember when I was 13 and 14 and 15 and 16 and 17...I thought I knew everything. In fact, I didn't only think that I knew everything. I knew that I knew everything. Boy, was I wrong. Those laws are there for a very good reason. Some teenagers might be adult enough to make their own decisions, but the laws are there to protect the ones who can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris2001x2
Small children are wise - teenagers are dumbarses.
That lucky son of a *****.
I dont think I need to repeat what he said...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud_99
I agree with Leeza on this. The woman is probably innocent IMO. I think this was just a stupid prank to get the teacher screwed.
it is my opinion that at 14 the boy hasn't fully come to terms with puberty and still is having trouble controling his urges. He is an easy target for child molesters. On the same token he could been the one to instegate such an act out of his own diprivety of sex. Or this could be a repeat of the Michael Jackson case where the boy and his family lied about it.
Doesn't she got shame????????
She should have!!!!!
So true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alusiasa
While she hasn't admitted guilt, I can read from the first paragraph: "Detectives said that the cousins provided matching statements incriminating Debra Beasley Lafave and that the 14-year-old described Lafave's apartment and her tattoos and birthmarks." Which, in my book, is fairly hard to randomly guess. It doesn't mean she's guilty, but I think that's one thing that made the law take the thing seriously.
On to other things, like 14-year old kids thinking they know what's good for them. As Leeza and Unne said, it's possible that some do. A small minority. Now the law is here for the majority. And it doesn't matter if you're 6 or 14, as long as you're under the legal age of consent for your state, you cannot have consentual sex, because the law doesn't recognize the right for you to give that consent. So, in regards of the law, it doesn't matter who started the relation. Now if you disagree, vote and-- oh wait, you can't vote either. Looks like you'll have to abide by the law, then. Maybe there's a reason you can't vote either. :p Like how teenagers (especially males) think with their genitals.
As for the kid being "lucky", if she was a girl, you would ALL have called her a slut/whore/whatelse. But it's a boy, so he "scored", he's "lucky", he'll be "the hero". That's a good example of how you can't make a reasonable judgement, too.
To me, those matching statements sound like the boys could have sat down and decided on what to say after maybe seeing a picture of her apartment. Sometimes, people take pictures and bring them in to work where anyone can see them. Or, maybe they were at her apartment for some fabricated reason just so that they could see it. Birthmarks and tattoos can be seen on anyone wearing a bathing suit so they're quite easy as well for anyone to know about. A lot more information is needed here in order for me to see any guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless
but she will get convicted anyway. thats how it always goes... its innocent until proven... err... wait its guilty. period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeza
to be honest when your teenager u should be allowed to have consentual sex if u want. yes your going 2 screw up and act stuiped alot but they can choose for themselves. they dont need a nanny state telling them what to do and think, that they are automotons who cant make a rational judgement because they r too obsessed with sex.
if we banned everything that could lead to damaging of health for teenagers, lets ban running, eating, playing outside, having friends, sports etc let us teenagers learn our lessons about sex as teenagers so we can become more responsible adult ppl with such experiences. in this case demon-ising the adult and stuiped-ifing the teenager is just cruel.
Explain to me how having a kid when you're 14 makes you a "responsible adult"? Are you ready to get a job? Is your education finished (*insert comment about your spelling here*)? Can you live on your own? Pay a rent? Pay the child's care? The food? The clothes? Medication? (*) You may think you know everything, but the fact is, you don't. When you're 14 or 15, you don't know all that comes with "having a child". 16 year old barely know, and at 18 we *think* you know enough. Because at 18 your're on your own, you aren't your parents' resposability anymore, so if you screw things up, the authorities go after *you*, not after your mom and dad.
(*) If any of you tells me that "mom and/or dad will help me out", you're just proving my point why kids shouldn't not have sex: you expect your parents to take/share the burden and responsability of your actions. Ergo, you are not ready.
teenagers have the option of using protection/ morning after pill to eliminate that eventuality and its those ppl who r dumb enough to allow an unwanted pregnency (unless there was a fault with the protection or pill) give other teenagers a bad name. as long as they dont bring a child into the world by staying safe(and thus not being imparted a sexually transmited diease as well) there is nought wrong with consentual teenage sex.
p.s- what is wrong with my spelling? i admit i,m not flawless but the only flaws i can see is some obscure gramatical flaws. why pick such low tactics into a vain attempt to invalidate my opinion?
You can't say that teenagers are just as responsible or fully grasp the consequences of their actions. Their bodies aren't fully developed and neither are their minds. Think of how you were ten years ago. Were you as smart then as you are now? No, you were an idiot. You are just as big an idiot now. It is only going to take you ten more years to realize it. I think this is true for everyone.
If you want to legalize consensual sex among teens why not let minors drive cars, smoke cigarettes, and join the army. They are apparently old enough to understand what they are doing.
As for spelling, although it is considered low to insult someone's spelling and grammar, all standardized testing uses spelling and grammar to measure intelligence. It is basically a subtle way of insulting that. Don't get me wrong "i,m" not saying you are stupid. Just use spell check in the future it makes it easier to read.
yeah true but my spelling is pretty good and i am typing fast so if i,m considered low intellegence because of that then there must be some very stuiped ppl around considering i can say with no arrogance that i,m not too bad intellectually.
anyway what u were saying about legalising other stuff for teenagers touches on my earlier point. they r dangerous stuff, but there is other dangerous stuff thats not been made illegal. why is that?
Protection doesn't always works for teenagers for multiple reasons: misuse or stupidity ("let's do it standing", "use the pull out method") (which I admit could be lowered with proper education), hormonal cycles still getting in gear, and just the fact that neither the condom nor the pill offer a 100% protection. Not to mention STDs. And it doesn't make my claim that "teenagers still have no clue what the consequences can be" less stronger.Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris2001x2
(For the spelling: we're not in a chatroom, nor talking through instant messaging/SMS. You can take your time, reread yourself (to avoid using "your" instead of "you're" for example), use punctuation, caps, " ' " instead of " , ", etc... English is not my native language, but it doesn't mean I have to write as if in a hurry in an AOL chatroom).
Because the other activities you mentioned don't have the wide repercussions having a child does? Running is good for your health, same for sports, eating is necessary, having friends is not in itself dangerous, and same for playing outside. Why do kids do all these? Because they inherently require no responsibility from the kid that cannot be supervised by parents/teachers. Sports have regulations too, and rules to make it safe. Smoking on the other hand is inherently a health damage, driving requires responsibility for your acts (accidents are far too common among teenagers), same for drinking (it impairs your judgement and your reaction speed). How fun do you think it is to lose someone in a car accident that you caused? To have a cancer? Have you thought these through?Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris2001x2
And you didn't reply to my other questions either.
If you want to legalize consensual sex among teens why not let minors drive cars, smoke cigarettes, and join the army. They are apparently old enough to understand what they are doing.
minors CAN drive cars, and personally, i think minors SHOULD be allowed to smoke ciggarettes (though i wouldnt do it) and as for the army, it wouldn't benefeit the army. physically inferior bodies are not something the army wants on the battlefeild.
I do suppose the driving age was a bad example but the fact is that you still have to wait until you reach the age where you have been deemed able to cope with such a responsibility. Even after which, there are still restrictions on what kinds of passengers can be in the car, how many and what hours you can be driving.
Smoking is just damn stupid. I don't think it should be legal at all and kids should be the last group people to be aloud to smoke.
That lady isnt hot at all IMHO, I dont know what some of you guys are talking about, her face is ugly... And that chick used to be Nick Carter's high school gf, I heard today on Fox News. -_-
well it makes no sense to have laws that arent enforced and never will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palindrome
Firstly, the misuse or stuipidity thing applys to adults as well. imho teenagers and adults r both terrible with sex but one is unlucky enough to have it being illegal. so i just find it hypocritical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless
secondly , i,m not writting an essay or CV 4 a job, so as long as it is understandable there is no need 4 100% spelling. and your examples r pretty lame and non-important and as u should know, spelling has no bearing on a person,s intellectual capacity.
thirdly...well i guess i cant argue with your third point, makes complete sense because it has consequences 4 other ppl aside from the individual.
and pray tell what were the other questions?
No, you're not writing an essay, and spelling mistakes are allowed. However, tpyiung liek dis shows of great disrespect to the ones you're addressing your posts to. It is just barely understandable (not to mention you don't even fully write simple words like 'you', 'are', etc), and frankly, seems like you've typed everything with your nose, and don't care much if your posts are comprehended or not. And yes, spelling properly *is* a sign of intelligence, while it's true that mis-spelling is not always a sign of stupidity and can also be caused by dyslexia. However, most of the time, it's carelessness.Quote:
secondly , i,m not writting an essay or CV 4 a job, so as long as it is understandable there is no need 4 100% spelling. and your examples r pretty lame and non-important and as u should know, spelling has no bearing on a person,s intellectual capacity.
As for the case in hand - I maintain my previous point - teen-agers are idiots, generally. They cannot understand the idea of parenthood, nor take full responsibilty for their actions. If I had anything to say about it, I wouldn't let anyone under the age of 17 drive, either.
yes but my posts are understandable and i dont *tpyi liek dis*, its odd things like *person,s* and the Like and things like that emanate no feeling of disrespect to anyone. your dealing in a hyperthetical situation which does not apply to me. even when my posts lack coherence (like in eyes on each other topics i do) they are still easily understandable.
stop making out my posts are completly inane babble in an attempt to make my views lack validity. if you want to do that, do it like Endless did to one of my points...
*Because the other activities you mentioned don't have the wide repercussions having a child does? Running is good for your health, same for sports, eating is necessary, having friends is not in itself dangerous, and same for playing outside. Why do kids do all these? Because they inherently require no responsibility from the kid that cannot be supervised by parents/teachers. Sports have regulations too, and rules to make it safe. Smoking on the other hand is inherently a health damage, driving requires responsibility for your acts (accidents are far too common among teenagers), same for drinking (it impairs your judgement and your reaction speed). How fun do you think it is to lose someone in a car accident that you caused? To have a cancer? Have you thought these through?*
and argue against it through the vehicle of reason, not an insinuation of stuipdity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris2001x2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless
i dont recall saying anything about having a kid at 14 making u a responsible adult. please can u quote where i said that.
Hold on, This is a strapping 14 year old young man, if he didn't agree with what his teacher was doing, couldn't he have punched her silly untill she stopped?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris2001x2
i,m still waiting 4 the quote Endless. the quote involving having kids at 14...
No 1 ever said that u that said any 1 was 14. U said teenager and 14 is teenager. I suspekt that endless used the age of 14 because that is the age of the child in ?. so endless,s point is stil valid. y r u trying to discredit it with a stupit tecnicality. isn,t it not just like us using your speling to discredit u. and it is hard for ppl to read post like this.
except my posts were well more understandable then your last one.
no its not a tecnicality, at no point did i say having a child at 14 years old makes u a responsible adult which is what Endless had implied. i said its best to learn about sex as a teenager so they can become more responsible and learned adults. this does not involve having babys...
Having sex (at any age) means there is a chance/risk of having a kid. Having sex as a (whatever age starting at, let's say, 13) teen means a risk of having a kid as a teen. Now, how does that make you a responsible adult? Are you ready for the consequences? Are you ready to pay for all the baby expenses? To get a job? To pay your own rent? To stop seeing your friends as much to take care of the kid?
Oral sex ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Endless
Oral sex, or any other type of thing like that is dangerous. Although, in my opinion, I do not believe that kids like that should do start even dating (just my opinion). I know that I might be a teenager as well, and that sometimes adults may think that we have to learn a lot more, which we do actually, but I think that once they grow up more, they should even think about.
Heck, I've met thirteen year old's having sex, without even having any thoughts. And the protection, like endless has said, may not always work 100%. and as for the issue, it doesn't make the boy "cool" as some kids try to use sex as a means of popularity (Most of them not, but I've met a few).
As for why children doing the other kind of things is dangerous, I've heard that you get some sort of mouth disease from Oral sex, all though I am not sure, sex not only gives you the chance of having a child, but the risk of transmitting a disease. Even kissing gives you Meningocal C.
I may be proven wrong though, it's just what I think. Just my opinion.
which is why i said morning after pill is avaliable. if that screws up, an abortion. there is absolutely no reason why teenagers should be having children with these fail safes. i,m not dumb, i know the only 100% contreception is abstience. but u seem 2 think if the 1 in a 100,000 chance of conceiving occurs( whileusing contreception, lets say the pill is affected by some hormonal imbalance, or the condom breaks) then u must have the baby. u dont.Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless
unless u think morning after pill and abortion are wrong, in which case, yes, u should not have sex, 2 avoid the evil of bringing an unwanted child into this cesspit of a world.
p.s- maybe i,m biased because i,m british, or the age of consent is 16, or i did,nt have a gf till i was almost 19 and am a sad lonely guy but i stand by my opinion unless its proved wrong(like u did with 1 of my other points which i admit to).
p.s.s- whoah we have took this way off topic... :choc:
I was waiting for that one, took you long. Ok, so how do you know what it feels like mentally and emotionally to have an abortion? Do you think it's like getting stiches? Do you know that each abortion is something that lowers your chance of having a kid later? Want to be like the woman in that story?Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris2001x2
I just read it, and I was disgusted. I agree with you Endless.
that artice has not changed one thing. i,m pro-woman,s choice. yes there may be some emotional damage but emotional damage comes with most big choices we make.
anyway i,m not for abortion as a life style choice, but as a last resort when contreception, pill and morning after pill have failed, its ok.
r u against abortion by any chance? if so then we will never agree because you have different ethics and opinions and i doubt you want a long drawn out arguement on the rights and wrongs of abortion so it probably best if we move away from abortion.
I'm pro-choice, to a reasonable extent, for rape/medical reasons. My wife uses an implant because we're not planning to have kids, since we know it would be a major difficulty, but we're aware of the risks of having sex and all the implications, and were it to happen, we would face them. Teenagers aren't aware of that. Regardless of one's stance on abortion, it doesn't make it a less traumatic event, which you don't seem to realize.
maybe i,m just like unable 2 comprehend the full emotional consequences of abortion cause i,m like a guy.
Yeah the poor mom...wait...its gotta suck for the poor kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris2001x2
i would argue the world is a cess pit, so to bring an unwanted child into this crap is the greater wrong. not to mention many ppl, given the choice, wish they had never existed. the amount of times i,ve cursed my mum for not aborting me...
oh, dont be such a misogynist. how is getting pregenent being a slut?
hey, u changed what u wrote! :mad2:
The same way getting a 14 year old pregnant makes you an asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by aeris2001x2
The same way killing any living creature with possibility of inteligence is still killing.
The same way that schools teach teenagers its ok to have sex because there are "fail safes".
The same my my spacebar keeps sticking and its driving me INSANE!
Im not saying getting pregnant makes you a slut...but if your getting an abortion...why?
1)sleeping around
2)fooled around with your (Boy,Girl)friend and OOPS! your penis fell into her vagina!
3)Your spouse and you just arent ready for a baby (this i don't believe, my sister is 22 and has an oops baby)
4)You got raped
More often than not its 1 or 2 and in my book, premarital sex = slut imo.
All of those could have been taken care of before abortion..Pills,condom, (anal,oral) sex instead. Even if you are raped you can still grab a morning after. We don't have to resort to dragging babys out and snapping their necks, ect.
"premarital sex = slut imo"
exactly, this opinion of sex is inevitably going to not allow us disagree, just as Endless only believes in abortion for rape/medical reasons.
if u think that sex before marriage is being a slut, then IMO, you r living in the past and/or r bound by the shackles of religious doctrine. thats just a opinion and i,m not flameing u personally. but i believe u r allowed to hold personal *no sex before marriage* values as u do, but not to push this onto others and insult those who dont share this view of sex.
about those 4 reasons. only number 1 is a slut.
and i was saying earlier that ABORTION is a LAST RESORT. i,m sensible enough to realise that condoms, pill, morning after pill r not 100%. you can have all these and still fall pregenent. only abstience is for sure.
but enjoy your life while u can and have sex. abortion of unwanted babies is a mercy. its much better to never exist then suffer and die in this world, espicalary if u r unwanted.
i know u wont agree because of your ethics, so lets just leave it , cause, like endless, it comes down 2 personal beliefs.
I can insult whoever I want :PQuote:
Originally Posted by aeris2001x2
So im living in the past? ok, so whats the present? or the future for that matter? You like the idea of you asking your son if he had a nice day in 7th grade and him saying "Yeah, that bitch Emily finaly gave me a blowjob." I just like the way I think on this issue, seriously....my cousin is 10 and a serious racist..why? Because he watches south park and idolizes cartman. And nowcan't stop calling people "stupid jews" But maybe you are right. Maybe its true, maybe I try and live in a fictional world of yesteryear where men dont rape little girls because they tihnk it may get rid of their aids, maybe I like to think that having sex in the dumpster behind school isn't quite right. Maybe I click on a link because I didn't read the full description and find "Pregnant mothers screwing fathers full frontal! ect ect" and am grossed out instead of turned on. Maybe I think you should have sex with the one you love...and if you love them enough to express it through sex, I think you would love them enough to get married. Maybe I can look at a picture of a baby in the womb and get teary, instead of thinking, "Wow thats a cool almost human creature, are you going to abort it? its your body after all..its not even realy human yet." If that means im living in the past, thank God...at least that means I don't have to live during this time period.
i was talking about old fashioned religious values that victimise ppl. i have no idea what your ramblings was about...
and sure u can insult anyone u like, it just makes u an asshole...
thank you, now I willQuote:
Originally Posted by aeris2001x2
Thank you for not fully reading/taking time to care about my entire post then calling me an assholet...oh yeah and saying that my values are not up to date and that I victomise people and that what I have to say is just ramblings. Thank God you don't insult people like I do. I mean...I actualy said that if you loved someone enough to have sex with them you would want to marry them! And if you didn't your priorities are messed up. WOAH! Im a rebel!
i recall reading your post and realising it was a complete tangent to the topic at hand.
i recall saying insulting ppl makes u an asshole, i never called u an asshole.
your thanks are received warmly. nice of u to realise the truth of your victimisation of ppl who dont believe the same as u.
"thank God you don't insult people like I do."
and i,m geniunly perplexed by this. what ambigious, deeper meaning does this profess to exclaim?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
he is SO far ahead, he's almost come back around.
:exdee:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aranel
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aranel
Joking!
Although, in my opinion, I think that teenagers should not have sex. In my highschool, I have seen quite a lot of kids whose lives have been screwed just for some pleasure.
Maybe when they learn more from their experiences, rather than thinking that they will learn by having sex, then face the horrible, horrible outcome, they should have sex. Then again, if they are older and more responsible teenagers. Ones that are aware of the consequences, and truly do love eachother, then I maybe might let it go. Still, I can only say they should grow up a bit.
Meh, I'm going to have to take Tastey's side on this one. But it's just my :twocents:
I agree with Lg, i'm only in 9th and last year a girl in my drama class had to quit school to take care of her child, poor girl.