14 years old qt madly in love with you. Wwyd?

14 years old qt madly in love with you. Wwyd?

Oh, and age of consent in your place is 16

Go for it, fuck it, you only live once.

moar?

Young girls are exceptionally emotionally unstable. Plus she will be barraged constantly and endlessly that she was raped and you are a rapist.

You will go to jail. As a pedophile. Good luck with that.

Buy her an ice cream, send her home to her parents. Wait 4 years.

b&

That's exactly how I picture it going. She blabs to her friends, some parent finds out, her parents find out, the cops find out. Her parents and cops interrogate her. "He raped you didn't he, honey?" She knods, "Uh, yeah, rape."

Boom. Jail. Fucked for life.

It's worth it in the moment, but you only live once and I'm not spending 20 years in federal fuck me in the ass prison.

nothing wrong with being in a relationship and not fucking her till she's ready, need to get a signed paper with her hand writing and consent, then i'd say you're good to go.

Children can't give consent.

Wait till they turn 18

you'd be surprised

Date her for a year. Only going as far as kissing.
Wait less than a year, bingo.

(Age of consent here is 15.)

I would immediately run to a mirror to make sure I'm still in my skin, because there's absolutely no reason for 14yo to be attracted to a bland, chubby, 30yo piece of shit like me.

Hopefully I woke up in the body of a younger, hotter guy.

Contracts with minors are unilaterally voidable at any time.

this

i would fuckin bring her to her parents and tell them to fix her you pedo fucks

Shelter her from corrupt officers and teach her to be a hitman.

...

Wow no job security in the mining business.

Pedos refuse to understand the concept of legal consent because that disrupts their whole world view.

it's not that they don't have the mental capacity or ability to give consent, it's just that they legally are not able to. They are not full people in the government's eye.

There have been kids who have refused painful cancer treatments yet the parent just overrides them because they are the guardian of a supposedly helpless and completely unintelligent being.

In this situation currently, reluctantly told her I'm obligated not to like her.

low key try to fuck her

And blacks completely ignored laws that messed with their world view when they fought for civil liberties.

Laws do not make the measure of morality or truth.

in New York, 13 year olds are allowed to have sex, it's just that the other person can't be older than 15 because that somehow makes it wrong.

It's not "wrong" or "immoral" it's just against societal norms.

>It's not "wrong" or "immoral" it's just against societal norms.
It's both.

Because you have been programmed to think that it's wrong.

...

No, because I realize that children are not mentally developed enough to be capable of giving informed consent.

and what version of legal consent is the right one?

31 US states that say 16, not 18?
Italy and Germany, that say 14?
Parts of Mexico that say 12 or puberty?
Arabic countries that say 9-10?
Delaware 120 years ago that said 7?
The very first legal age of consent law ever passed, that said 6?
All human history in all societies prior to that which had no restriction at all?

My great grandfather was 28 when he married his 14 yo wife back in the 1920s and nobody ever said he was a pedo or anything..

Historically, even within the past 200 years, once the woman had her first period, she was eligible to marry and breed.

Do you have children? This notion is just proof that parents do not educate their children enough. Sex is an important part of life and all too often parents don't teach them anything and want schools to do it or their religious nuts and want them to know nothing of sex at all except that it's wrong and dirty and is only for making babies after you're married.

Yeah sure. You fucking underage kids is exactly like the civil rights movement. The laws might not measure morality or truth because they don't have to, they just measure The Law. nobody gives a shit about morality or the truth because both are fucking subjective in the minds of humans. The law is not.

This. The variation between morality and laws around the world gives me a mental hard on.

It's so convoluted and arbitrary a lot of the time.

I didn't say they were, but the notion that the only measure of morality are the current laws in place in the country is asinine....laws change, morality is supposed to be a universal truth that never changes.

>this

The current one as stated in the area you live.

Christ see what I mean? They are willfully obtuse on the law because they just cannot deal with it. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
>it's illegal to fuck children

>My great grandfather was 28 when he married his 14 yo wife back in the 1920s and nobody ever said he was a pedo or anything
Times change.
>Historically, even within the past 200 years, once the woman had her first period, she was eligible to marry and breed.
Even within the past 200 years, it was acceptable to own other people as property.

Something being traditional does not make it correct.

>Sex is an important part of life and all too often parents don't teach them anything
Teaching children about sex does not equal allowing them to have sex.

...

>16yo
>Two years to able to vote
>Not mentally developed

Man, I know the educational system is shit pretty much everywhere but you are underestimating human idiocy.

In your mind, is a 14yr old a child or a teenager?

So if I move to Mexico it's no longer wrong to fuck 12 year olds? Wonderful. I agree.
What if it was changed back to 12 where I am, do I go from being a pedo to no longer being a pedo automatically?

"legal" consent has no relation to actual consent.
the only age where you can even begin an argument would be the age of reason, which is generally agreed to be 7.

wrap her legs around her head. go to town.

Morality is also bullshit, because nobody can ever agree on what it actually is. Nobody is talking about morality. We're talking about Law.

I don't give a shit if you fuck teenagers. But it is against the law, and quibbling over the meaning of consent is only going to make the judge hate you more.

my nigga

Groom her for 18 or fuck her at my place. Depends on the situation.

Nobody said "wrong" I said ILLEGAL. Yeah, sure go to Mexico and fuck kids. I don't give a shit. You're a pedo because when someone tells you it's illegal to fuck children you sperg out like I just told you ice cream is now illegal.

Nobody gives a shit about "actual" consent. Nobody but pedos.

Well here is a slightly different issue.

There's two concepts: malum prohibitum, and malum in se. Things that are wrong only because they are prohibited, and things that are wrong because they are evil in and of themselves.
There's pretty broad agreement historically and currently, and statutory rape falls into the prohibitum category. Murder, rape, stealing.. in se. Drugs, prohibitum.

This is such a mental hurdle for you.

Morality = eternal truth of right and wrong that cannot be changed

Law = Words of men that change at a whim

what everyone here is trying to get you to see is that just because something is the law doesn't mean it is morally or intrinsically "wrong"

The fact that you say "times change" when I told you of my great grandfather is because you are a relativist. Historical relativism is the belief that things that were once commonly accepted as ok are only NOW wrong because we know better. No. Slavery was always wrong.


>Teaching children about sex does not equal allowing them to have sex.
no shit...but if they knew about sex and its risks etc, couldn't they then make informed consent??

So, you love rethoric logic?

Times will always change, that's why law always change.

So your tradition of hunting down pedos might not be correct and might eventually be illegal, given that a murderer has more human rights than a pedo is unlikely but it might happen all the same.

>Two years to able to vote
>Not mentally developed
Hence why they are not able to vote.
>underestimating human idiocy.
Setting an age is the only viable way to go about it. Trying to test each individual to see if they are developed enough to be able to give consent would be impossible.

Kinda like how drugs are illegal but millions point out how stupid those laws are right?

Are you some statist authoritarian that thinks laws are always right and nobody should challenge them?

And normal people don't give a shit about any of that. If you don't like the law, write to your senator or some shit. If you're going to break the law anyway and come up with some mental gymnastics to avoid feeling bad about it, great.

Just don't expect anyone to ever give a single shit what you have to say about it.

>what everyone here is trying to get you to see is that just because something is the law doesn't mean it is morally or intrinsically "wrong"
Yeah, I already see that.
>The fact that you say "times change" when I told you of my great grandfather is because you are a relativist.
No actually. The people of your grandfather's time were wrong. Times changed and people figured out that they were wrong.
>if they knew about sex and its risks etc, couldn't they then make informed consent
No, because they still aren't mentally developed enough to be able to wisely process that information.

Wait 4 years

and actually, more and more people are starting to care about actual consent because police and prosecutors are increasingly abusing the laws to charge teens with same-age partners under laws meant for 50 year olds fucking 5 year olds.

No, morality is not "bullshit" it's pretty much the basis of all civilization, religion, and laws.

that's why you get a fine for speeding and you go to prison for murder. One is inherently wrong and the other is frowned upon but not immoral.

I completely understand that having sex that goes against the law is illegal, but not that it is morally wrong.

I'm just saying many laws are arbitrary and that an unjust law shouldn't be a law. This is what happens when our senators can stand up and quote scripture to get laws passed.

But what we're telling you is that just because a government says something is illegal doesn't mean it is wrong or should be illegal.....

defending the law blindly just because it is the law means we would never advance as a society and you'd never be able to preach about historical relativism.

No I'm a fucking realist that knows I've got to pick my battles against The Man and fucking children isn't a battle I or anyone else would ever win. Except in battle against the kid to fuck them, that's easy.

Do you feel bad about breaking the law when you smoke a joint?

When you go 1mph over the speed limit?

When you violate a website's TOS, which is now considered illegal under the CFAA?

No? Because morality matters, and even laws that cover some actually immoral situations can and are applied to situations that are not that least bit wrong

Then why do many states allow people as young as 13-14 to have sex?

In NY a 13 year old can have lawful sex as long as the other person is 15 or younger. That is the LAW. The government recognizes that they are old enough to make the choice to risk pregnancy and std without a system of educating them about sex....

>Trying to test each individual to see if they are developed enough to be able to give consent

>They do exactly this to see if you are fit to work and if you should graduate

>Anybody without even high school diploma can vote

>"We still can't know if people are ready for something guys"

Now, I'm not advocating to institutionalize sex. But not every single person is fucktwit.

There are 20yos that don't fucking know what a condom is. This makes mental proccessing unrelatable to consent.

Sexual education is where is at. Unfortunately it's highly controversial because "Children shouldn't know about it"... even at fucking 17.

When I'm bored I'll argue about it on the internet, if someone brings up something related IRL I'll explain my opinion.
I'm not out rallying or writing legislators (though for drug law reform i sure am)

and what if the law changes back to where a 28 year old could marry a 14 year old? Wouldn't our descendants then say we were wrong to have the laws we have now?

Defending the law blindly is bad.

I'm not the relativist guy. I'm the guy who is calling you a pedo because you've decided to write a doctoral thesis about morality when people reminded you that fucking kids is illegal.

>Then why do many states allow people as young as 13-14 to have sex?
Because like you said, laws are not necessarily morally correct. Those states are wrong.

So you believe teenagers should be arrested at gunpoint and imprisoned for sex with other teenagers?

Now your idiocy has led you somewhere even most normal people think is idiotic.

>and what if the law changes back to where a 28 year old could marry a 14 year old?
Then I would say they are wrong.
>Wouldn't our descendants then say we were wrong to have the laws we have now?
They might, but that doesn't make them right.
>Defending the law blindly is bad.
Good thing that isn't what I'm doing.

girl? in love? with me?

its like youre speaking chinese to me man

>So you believe teenagers should be arrested at gunpoint and imprisoned for sex with other teenagers?
Not all crimes involve being arrested at gunpoint and sent to prison you troll.

so you admit that you have a bias besides just taking this platform of defending the law because it's the law.

I'm not a pedophile and sue me for arguing about controversial laws. Do you believe that a 17 year old who hooked up on a dating app with a girl who lied about her age should be relegated to the sex offender registry for life?

Because that is happening. and it is wrong.

>Those states are wrong
Based on? The subject you can't study because children don't know about sex? Or because mentioning our lack of information on the issue can land you jailtime?

age of consent in mexico is 12 guess who's going to beaner land

What you're doing is claiming you're the final authority and what is and is not a valid age for legal consent, despite wide disagree in the world.

What specific age are you claiming, by the way, mr authoritative expert?

Yes, they do, that's what a 'crime' is. Do you mean to say it should be a civil infraction? Otherwise, at some point, it by definition could be enforced by guns and bars.

slam that ass

>So you believe teenagers should be arrested at gunpoint and imprisoned for sex with other teenagers?
Do you? Because it happens and it seems fucking crazy to me.

>Controversial laws
The age of consent is only controversial to pedos

Ok, so you've made clear that you believe there is a moral issue here.

But what I will ask you is, all current laws aside, what is the age at which people should be allowed to have sex?

With the arbitrariness of the laws everyone has presented you have said that many of them are "wrong" but have failed to say what is "right"

Yes, it's not controversial at all, that's why it's the same in every US state and every country in the world. Everybody all agrees on the same number except the pedos.

>so you admit that you have a bias besides just taking this platform of defending the law because it's the law.
My position has never been "defending the law because it's the law", I'm defending morality.

and conservatives...many think that it should be raised or that it should be altered so that those 13-15 year olds aren't having sex.

These are usually the same people saying that we shouldn't provide even optional sex education in schools and that is why conservative, "christian" states in the south like Texas have the highest teen pregnancy rates.

Yea, and don't forget that there is a national age of consent of 18 that everyone in those other states is breaking federal law....

The pedos are the only ones that raise a stink about it.

But they are ugly as sin user.

What's the point point of fucking if you'll need a paperbag?

I don't claim to be an expert on child developmental psychology. 16 - 20 would be the range that I would look at.

>as long as the other person is 15 or younger.
That's why. It's not legal for some 30-something sex offender because the age difference is too great.

No, actually they're not breaking federal law.

Federal law only applies if they cross state lines for sex.

You mean except all those civil liberties folks and parents that take exception to teenagers being charged with sexually exploiting themselves or their teenager lover right

ok, so then at what age should people be able to have sex? There are plenty of issues with age and what you can do at what age.

at 17 in most states, you can have sex with anyone 17+ years of age, yet if you take a nude picture, that's CP. You can also sign up and fight in the military, yet you can't rent a car, have a beer, or have a credit card.

What is the moral truth when it comes to age, mate? I really just want to know.

No, most states aren't 17.

31 states, a majority, are 16.

Niggeria - 18 aoc. 233/1000 teen pregnacies
Japan - 13 aoc. 4/1000 teen pregnacies

that's not a valid comparison, and i'm the guy arguing against an age as high as either of those.

also japan upped their aoc some years ago.

>Comparing a nigger infested country with a weebs infested one

As you people might already had seen, it is culturally acceptable for nigger to be nigging thus why they have the highest birthrate everywhere.

Niggers teach to breed no matter what, everybody else teach to abstinate because sex is so wrong and harmful.

Let's say both live in Kansas City. One on the Kansas side, one on the MO side. Let's just say the age of consent is the same in both states, yet they weren't 18. Should the Feds really prosecute them? lol.

And I would argue that each person is different. There are clearly fully grown adults who are not responsible enough to handle sex in a relationship and children and I have known 14 year olds who are more mature and intelligent than many of the adults I've worked with.

I picked 17 to leave out the states that say 18, not to take away that 16 is the age in most. and like I said, in NY even 13 year olds can have sex.

Yea, I know, but the cut off age is arbitrary. Why is 16 too old but 15 is okay? The minute you turn 16 it is now some horribly "immoral" crime.

No, I mean pedos. Those are the only people who I hear complain about it. I suppose I'll just have to take your word on it.

>And I would argue that each person is different.
Each person is different, but we need a standard age for logistical reasons, and we should err on the side of caution.

Show her the sweet art of making love

and that's just the sort of attitude one can expect in America. Try to find the truth of the matter and people only believe it's because you want to fuck a 5 year old.

and as a Libertarian who believes in personal freedom, I disagree. I think we should err on the side of freedom to let people decide...and that is why I will be called a pedo by you all.

>Try to find the truth of the matter and people only believe it's because you want to fuck a 5 year old.

Well yeah, but you do don't you?

>as a Libertarian
Well that certainly does explain it.

>I picked 17 to leave out the states that say 18, not to take away that 16 is the age in most. and like I said, in NY even 13 year olds can have sex.

13 can have sex only under close-in-age exemptions. the 31 states im talking about, a 16 year old can be legally gangbanged by a group of 50 year old niggers if she so chose

>Should the Feds really prosecute them? lol.
No, they shouldn't. But they can and have some similar things. That's part of the problem with the laws. Somebody proposes a law to address something some 40 year old did to a preschooler, civil liberties people scream about how the law is bad because it could be applied to teenagers with other teenagers, they're shouted down as pedo enables and told no cop or prosecutor would ever do that, then a few years later some cops and prosecutors do EXACTLY that

yeah, we should err on the side of caution, and just set it to puberty or 12 instead of trying to find the age of reason around 6-8.

Wait until she is 16. Then try and fuck