??
haha
I like the fact that the reason "he's a cunt" is because he didn't answer the b3ta qotw properly, and not the fact he's dated a underage teenager.

Also, I have no idea where you got the idea that anal sex is illegal..
(Brucey bow chika wa wow, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 18:51, 1 reply)

I was wrong about one detail, as I misread the 1967 ammendment
Anal sex in the UK was illegal at any age for anybody for centuries.

In 1967, the Sexual Offences Act was ammended, in the wake of the Wolfenden Report, to make anal sex between consenting adults (i.e over 21 at the time) of either gender no longer an offence if "no other person was present".

Over time the age of consent for heterosexual sex was reduced to 18 and then 16. However, this conflicted with the 1967 ammendment, which set a minimum age for anal sex at 21 for both genders - (the act actually uses the phrase "consenting adults", which would mean those aged 21 in 1967).

In 2000 an amendment was finally succesful and reduced the age of consent for gay men to 16. However, this amendment specifically referred to gay men - for obvious reasons, as the age of consent for sex in general was already 16 for straight couples. At the time, though, no one thought to repeal the 1967 ammendment that set an age of consent for anal sex generally at the age of majority (then 21, now 18).

The 1967 ammendment stated that "consenting adults" did not commit an offence by having anal sex. This meant that when the age of majority was reduced from 21 to 18 in the UK, the 1967 ammendment now referred to "consenting adults" as being those over 18, not 21 as had been the case in 1967.

Because the 2000 ammendment did not explicitly state in the text that it replaced the 1967 ammendment, the 1967 ammendment is still law - making it an offence for anyone under 18 to have anal sex. However, the 2000 ammendment means that it is not a criminal offence for two men to have anal sex if they are over the age of 16. So the two ammendments conflict.

This resulted in the current incongruity where a gay couple can have anal sex at 16, but a straight couple are committing an offence if they have anal sex at 16 or 17. It is illegal by accident; the result of an oversight that no one has ever thought to bother correcting.
If the law were to one day change so that a person is legally an adult at 16, then the 1967 ammendment would automatically fall into line with the age of consent and this incongruity will be eliminated.

Despite being wrong about the details, my point is still valid; there is an incongruity when it comes to anal sex.

Also, he's a cunt because his attitude suggests that he believes there would have been some humour in it if he had had sex with the 15 year old.

He's just a cunt, basically.
(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 18:58, closed)