Mom "saves" 15 year old son from becoming Legendary Awesomeness

[HAL]

The moment is irrelevant; it's the person I'm waiting for.

How quaint.

[lotanddaughters]

This is far from the norm, but you are free to do as you wish.

Is there a point to this, or did you just feel like pointing out the obvious?

To me, it seemed like Joe was making generalizations that are backed up by the majority of the population. Of course he knows there are exceptions.

You try to give sex a more eloquent and sophisticated meaning, immediately after you stated you've never had it. Are you waiting for that perfect, special moment?

The moment is irrelevant; it's the person I'm waiting for.

Thank you for answering. I believe you.

Clearly you didn't understand the point of what you replied to. Read it again. If you still don't get it, I'll clarify it for you.

If you could clarify, that would be great.

[One Above All]

To me, it seemed like Joe was making generalizations that are backed up by the majority of the population. Of course he knows there are exceptions.

To me, it seemed like joebbowers was making blanket statements based on the false-consensus effect. Based on his personality, I feel confident in my view.

If you could clarify, that would be great.

Arousal is involuntary, as are emotions. The thing (one of them anyway) that separates us from other great apes is that we choose not to listen to emotions. Just because your dick is hard doesn't mean you have to stick it somewhere and hump until it's not hard anymore. Teenagers (whether due to hormonal changes or social conditioning) seem to disagree with that, as do apes. Apes (and living beings in general) live and survive with the express purpose of continuing their species. Now do you get my comparison?

[lotanddaughters]

Arousal is involuntary, as are emotions.

But you see, I place arousal morally equal with hunger. I do not look down upon either. Both are generally accepted with today's moral understanding.

The thing (one of them anyway) that separates us from other great apes is that we choose not to listen to emotions.

I agree, but the expectation to choose not to listen doesn't apply across the board.

Most of us agree that if you desire to rape, don't follow that urge or we will punish you.

If you desire sexual relations with 5-year-olds, don't follow that urge, even with the child's consent, or we will punish you.

Just because your dick is hard doesn't mean you have to stick it somewhere and hump until it's not hard anymore.

But it would be good for you to do so, as long as you aren't violating someone's rights in the process.

Teenagers (whether due to hormonal changes or social conditioning) seem to disagree with that, as do apes. Apes (and living beings in general) live and survive with the express purpose of continuing their species. Now do you get my comparison?

I get your comparison, but I agree more with Joe and not you(in this thread).

[One Above All]

But it would be good for you to do so, as long as you aren't violating someone's rights in the process.

How is emotional immaturity good?

[Gnu Ordure]

The moment is irrelevant; it's the person I'm waiting for.

How quaint.

Perhaps so, but I don't think OOA deserved to be called a "backwards fucking freak" for having this attitude.

[Seppuku]

Only you and the backward fucking freaks.

Erm...thanks?

To me, it seemed like joebbowers was making blanket statements based on the false-consensus effect. Based on his personality, I feel confident in my view.

That's how I read it, whether wrongly or rightly.

Most of us agree that if you desire to rape, don't follow that urge or we will punish you.

If you desire sexual relations with 5-year-olds, don't follow that urge, even with the child's consent, or we will punish you.

Actually the idea that most who desire to rape (I know people have 'rape' fantasies) don't rape because they'll get punished worries me. If we suddenly took away the punishment would most decide that it's okay to rape? Even rape a child?

It's akin to the argument that without God there are no morals, the one that Christians like to throw at us atheists because they have this idea that without the fear of hell to punish us, we'd do whatever the hell we want and yet we act contrary and I wouldn't say that it's because we'd be punished by law either, because there are numerous ways of getting away with certain 'immoralities' many simply do not commit. People are still compassionate and still act selflessly, I don't know what percentage of the population is 'nice', but I know that one of our basic emotions is empathy, whilst not everybody has it, but those that do tend to care about how their actions affect others. I would like to think those without empathy are in smaller numbers.

But what are you actually basing this on? Your own projected feelings or something more solid? I'd be interested in seeing how much of the world's population with the desire to rape would rape if the consequences were removed and I wonder how many would live by some kind of moral standard?

Also, just because somebody desires something, it doesn't mean they're opportunists. I might desire to eat a sandwich because I'm hungry, and as I'm out of bread, I can't make myself one, but as soon as I see somebody else with a sandwich, I'm not going to snatch it, yes, I'd probably get away with it - who's going to charge me for stealing a sandwich? But the reason I wouldn't do it is because it's their sandwich and it's not right that I steal it from them, particularly as they probably want to enjoy it.

[orpat]

The girl should have verified his age. Should have checked his birth certificate first or any documents revealing details about his age(guy could have lied he was 16+) and after fully confirming that the "kid" was indeed above 16 years of age(in which case no body could point a finger against her), then only she should have indulged in sex. 


After all, we all verify our ages first by going through each other's birth certificates before indulging in sexual activities, don't we? 

[orpat]

Another thing the lady could have done was learning how to differentiate between the facial/physical features of a 15 year old and a 16-18 year old.

After all, a 15 year old looks drastically different from a 16 years old. Doesn't he/she?


P.s. I'm not advocating sex between a 15 years and a 24 years old btw. It's the law which I find funny.

Also it is easy to point fingers at others. We would like to believe that "normal" people like us can't/won't do such things.
For instance, I like to believe that I will never ever do such a horrible thing(indulging in sex with a 15 years old or in fact even thinking about it) because of my morality, self-control etc,etc.

But thing is, we never know.

[Kimberly]

Perhaps so, but I don't think OOA deserved to be called a "backwards fucking freak" for having this attitude.

Agreed. Joe and Frank could express their points of view with far less character attacks. All it does is devalue their arguments to the point of nonsense. IDK how anyone can expect to have their opinions heard if they can't even behave and express themselves with out being combative.

Any ways kudos to you Gnu for speaking up.

[Kimberly]

After all, a 15 year old looks drastically different from a 16 years old. Doesn't he/she?

I could not tell the difference or expect anyone else to. If the boy lied then I wouldn't hold her legally accountable. (For the age portion, not the attempting to have sex in public portion.)

[Kimberly]

Arousal is involuntary, as are emotions. The thing (one of them anyway) that separates us from other great apes is that we choose not to listen to emotions. Just because your dick is hard doesn't mean you have to stick it somewhere and hump until it's not hard anymore. Teenagers (whether due to hormonal changes or social conditioning) seem to disagree with that, as do apes. Apes (and living beings in general) live and survive with the express purpose of continuing their species. Now do you get my comparison?

Some people lack impulse control. Even if this kid were of legal age, deciding to have sex in public place is going to have consequences if you get caught. So either way she screwed up.

[Kimberly]

How quaint.

Can you please clarify what you are saying here HAL?

[One Above All]

Some people lack impulse control.

I know. That's one of the factors involved in what I call "emotional immaturity".

Even if this kid were of legal age, deciding to have sex in public place is going to have consequences if you get caught. So either way she screwed up.

Agreed.

[lotanddaughters]

Perhaps so, but I don't think OOA deserved to be called a "backwards fucking freak" for having this attitude.

Agreed. Joe and Frank could express their points of view with far less character attacks. All it does is devalue their arguments to the point of nonsense. IDK how anyone can expect to have their opinions heard if they can't even behave and express themselves with out being combative.

Read OAA's first post in this thread(Reply #20). Wait, you already did. You gave it a +1. The post contained character attacks and seemed a little combative. OAA deserves to be called many things if he can dish it out on his first post of a thread.

Any ways kudos to you Gnu for speaking up.

Kimberly, you can shut up and sit the fuck down.

[One Above All]

OAA deserves to be called many things if he can dish it out on his first post of a thread.

Even if your non-sequitur was valid, I think I handled it fairly well. You claimed I was backwards; evidence suggests otherwise. You claimed I was a freak; evidence suggests that's not a bad thing in this case.
You see, whereas you meant to insult me and failed, my connection had the subtle intent of debunking joebbowers's position by showing how it's emotionally immature, and thus harmful. I'll try to post the big picture from now on.[1]

1.	And no, this is not an insult.

[pianodwarf]

Kimberly, you can shut up and sit the fuck down.

Stow that, L&D.

[lotanddaughters]

OAA deserves to be called many things if he can dish it out on his first post of a thread.

Even if your non-sequitur was valid, I think I handled it fairly well. You claimed I was backwards; evidence suggests otherwise. You claimed I was a freak; evidence suggests that's not a bad thing in this case.
You see, whereas you meant to insult me and failed, my connection had the subtle intent of debunking joebbowers's position by showing how it's emotionally immature, and thus harmful. I'll try to post the big picture from now on.[1]

1.	And no, this is not an insult.

Joe's Reply #15 was a pretty good observation of basically how things work in the modern-day mating game. He was obviously aware of, but never thought of mentioning, the freaks on the fringe. He was not attacking you.

You bust out swinging with your Reply #21.

He took it easy on you with his Reply #22. Nevertheless, Timtheskeptic gave him a -1 for it. Who is Tim? Another freak on the fringe? I guess so.

Then you make only your 2nd reply of the thread. Reply #22:

You really are pathetic and dishonest. I just told you that it's not true and gave my personal example. I'm sure other members have similar opinions to my own. Yet you can't admit that you're wrong. That's just sad.

I'm surprised that all the logic hunters didn't declare "Open Season" on your ass.

I took it easy on an aggressor like you. Be thankful.

[HAL]

How quaint.

Can you please clarify what you are saying here HAL?

Quaint? You know - old fashioned charm. Quaint.

[One Above All]

Joe's Reply #15 was a pretty good observation of basically how things work in the modern-day mating game.

joebbowers's reply #15 was a good observation of how his mind works. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

He was obviously aware of, but never thought of mentioning, the freaks on the fringe.

It was so obvious that only you, who already agree with him, noticed it.

He was not attacking you.

This is just plain irrelevant, as I did not claim otherwise.

You bust out swinging with your Reply #21.

I already explained the one thing that might be construed as "aggressive".

He took it easy on you with his Reply #22. Nevertheless, Timtheskeptic gave him a -1 for it. Who is Tim? Another freak on the fringe? I guess so.

Wow, people who disagree with other people gave them -1's? Say it ain't so! That's never happened before in the history of the Internet!

Then you make only your 2nd reply of the thread. Reply #22:
<snip>

The "pathetic" thing was an insult, but with a purpose. I already mentioned the false consensus effect. It's pathetic that he actually thinks of himself as being better than everyone else when it's so blindingly obvious that the opposite is true.

I'm surprised that all the logic hunters didn't declare "Open Season" on your ass.

Sorry; I'm saving my ass for the right guy/girl.

I took it easy on an aggressor like you.

An "aggressor" like me? Wow. You're totally not overreacting in the least.

Be thankful.

Thankful for... what? If I can "dish it out", I can damn well take it. Be as aggressive as you think I was. See if I care.

[Seppuku]

L&D, your insult was inclusive of anybody with similar attitudes on partners as OAA, so your retaliation wasn't just directed at OAA, as I share the same approach, what do you suggest I do in response? Call you a 'see you next Tuesday?' Or just deal with it?

[lotanddaughters]

Joe's Reply #15 was a pretty good observation of basically how things work in the modern-day mating game.

joebbowers's reply #15 was a good observation of how his mind works. Period. Nothing more, nothing less.

I will try to make it simple. There is no question that guys, on average, want to have sex with girls more than girls want to have sex with them. To get sex, they have to offer something or appear to offer something that the girls want. Sometimes they get lucky and encounter a girl who wants sex just as badly, but this is usually not the case. This is as true as 1+1=2.

He was obviously aware of, but never thought of mentioning, the freaks on the fringe.

It was so obvious that only you, who already agree with him, noticed it.

He was not attacking you.

This is just plain irrelevant, as I did not claim otherwise.

You bust out swinging with your Reply #21.

I already explained the one thing that might be construed as "aggressive".

You are right about not claiming that he was attacking you. I just wanted to make sure you knew why I perceived you as the aggressor and thought I would chime in and take a shot at this discussion.

He took it easy on you with his Reply #22. Nevertheless, Timtheskeptic gave him a -1 for it. Who is Tim? Another freak on the fringe? I guess so.

Wow, people who disagree with other people gave them -1's? Say it ain't so! That's never happened before in the history of the Internet!

I should have said his Reply #21. It's not 22. The vibe I got out of this post of his is that he didn't feel like engaging in a debate with a quaint person. I also simply thought that Tim deserved honorable mention.

Then you make only your 2nd reply of the thread. Reply #22:
<snip>

The "pathetic" thing was an insult, but with a purpose. I already mentioned the false consensus effect. It's pathetic that he actually thinks of himself as being better than everyone else when it's so blindingly obvious that the opposite is true.

It was still pretty aggressive when he seemed so not-in-the-mood-to-argue-with-the-quaint.

I'm surprised that all the logic hunters didn't declare "Open Season" on your ass.

Sorry; I'm saving my ass for the right guy/girl.

How quaint.

I took it easy on an aggressor like you.

An "aggressor" like me? Wow. You're totally not overreacting in the least.

Be thankful.

Thankful for... what? If I can "dish it out", I can damn well take it. Be as aggressive as you think I was. See if I care.

Once again, you were right about taking it. I got more to give too.

[lotanddaughters]

L&D, your insult was inclusive of anybody with similar attitudes on partners as OAA, so your retaliation wasn't just directed at OAA, as I share the same approach, what do you suggest I do in response? Call you a 'see you next Tuesday?' Or just deal with it?

You'd better bring your best argument, 'cause I'm declaring a logical beat down on all the idiots in your camp. Bring your sword too.

[One Above All]

I will try to make it simple. There is no question that guys, on average, like joebbowers want to have sex with girls more than girls want to have sex with them. To get sex, they have to offer something or appear to offer something that the girls want. Sometimes they get lucky and encounter a girl who wants sex just as badly, but this is usually not the case. This is as true as 1+1=2.

I fixed that for you. It's that kind of self-stereotyping that makes men wonder why women don't like them. Men, on average, just like women, are responsible adults who don't take advantage of others. The "fringe freaks" are you; the ones who would manipulate women in order to have sex with them. The emotionally immature crowd. You're still boys, really.

I should have said his Reply #21. It's not 22. The vibe I got out of this post of his is that he didn't feel like engaging in a debate with a quaint person. I also simply thought that Tim deserved honorable mention.

My point remains.

It was still pretty aggressive when he seemed so not-in-the-mood-to-argue-with-the-quaint.

Your perception. Not mine.

Once again, you were right about taking it. I got more to give too.

Be my guest. I like it rough.

[Seppuku]

L&D, your insult was inclusive of anybody with similar attitudes on partners as OAA, so your retaliation wasn't just directed at OAA, as I share the same approach, what do you suggest I do in response? Call you a 'see you next Tuesday?' Or just deal with it?

You'd better bring your best argument, 'cause I'm declaring a logical beat down on all the idiots in your camp. Bring your sword too.

Meh, i'm not going stoop to your level of childishness, I haven't actually insulted you (and you complain about OAA's insult), so I am tempted to retaliate, but i'd rather have a logical discussion, not one with arrogance and insults, because they tend to be one-sided.

[lotanddaughters]

I will try to make it simple. There is no question that guys, on average, like joebbowers want to have sex with girls more than girls want to have sex with them. To get sex, they have to offer something or appear to offer something that the girls want. Sometimes they get lucky and encounter a girl who wants sex just as badly, but this is usually not the case. This is as true as 1+1=2.

I fixed that for you. It's that kind of self-stereotyping that makes men wonder why women don't like them. Men, on average, just like women, are responsible adults who don't take advantage of others. The "fringe freaks" are you; the ones who would manipulate women in order to have sex with them. The emotionally immature crowd. You're still boys, really.

Let's get to the bottom of this. Point for point. Do you agree that guys, on average, want to have sex with girls more than girls want to have sex with them?

[One Above All]

Let's get to the bottom of this. Point for point. Do you agree that guys, on average, want to have sex with girls more than girls want to have sex with them?

Boys, yes. Not men. And specially not males.

[lotanddaughters]

Let's get to the bottom of this. Point for point. Do you agree that guys, on average, want to have sex with girls more than girls want to have sex with them?

Boys, yes. Not men. And specially not males.

I say, if you round up all the people in the world, from those who have reached puberty on up, you will find that males, on average, want to have sex with females more than females want to have sex with them. Do you agree?

[One Above All]

I say, if you round up all the people in the world, from those who have reached puberty on up, you will find that males, on average, want to have sex with females more than females want to have sex with them. Do you agree?

You misunderstand me. When I speak of "boys" and "men", I speak in psychological terms. This is not an age issue. At least not physical age. To me, the fact that you see sex the way that you do screams emotional immaturity.

EDIT: You know, this discussion is going to end in one of two ways:
#1: We disagree and we both walk away, heads held high.
#2: We disagree and someone ends up pissed off.

I'd much rather we end it with #1, so what do you say we agree to disagree? Unless you have statistics that show my "males" claim[1] is erroneous, the rest simply cannot be wrong, by its very definition.

EDIT #2: And no, this is not a cop-out. It is an offer. If you wish to keep debating, I'm OK with that too.

1.	Which doesn't revolve around psychology.