"If he didn't have sex with her, his answer is not relevant to the QOTW,"
But if he had sex with one of the over 16 girls, which he hasn't confirmed or denied, then it IS relevant.

Did you bother to find out before you accused him of the terrible crime of badly replying to a QOTW?

I don't see what the issue is. He outright stated he didn't do anything illegal with the underaged girl (implying, I'd think you'd reasonably agree, that he didn't have sex with her), and he did have relationships with women who were substantially younger than him. Apart from not explicitly stating he had sex with the ones over 16 he had relationships with, he's neither admitted paedophilia nor has he poorly replied to the QOTW. I can't see anything here to justify you calling him a "cunt".

"Incidentally, since you brought up your own sexuality and assumed that I think it's wrong"

I did no such thing. Show me where I said YOU think homosexuality is wrong. I said that some people do. Don't infer what I'm not implying.

Edit: I commend you for doing all that research, though.
(Musuko, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 19:26, 1 reply)

I inferred from this paragraph.....
"Plenty of people think that what I get up to in the bedroom is wrong.

But the law says over 16 is a-okay. So are you saying your belief in what is wrong trumps the law, an implementation of the combined beliefs of what is right and wrong of the majority?"

...because you first say that some people think your sex life is wrong and then go on to suggest that I think my opinion trumps the law.
But if you're saying that wasn't your meaning, then it's good to have that clarified.

Also, half the research was already done. I was aware of the 2000 ammendment as it was a big issue when I was studying for my law degree at the time. However, since we didn't study sexual offences in any great detail (dealing only with things like rape and indecent assault in our general criminal law classes) I didn't know about the 1967 ammendment. If the 1967 ammendment hadn't existed, we would now have a situation were anal sex would be illegal for straight couples of all ages. Likewise, if the 2000 ammendment had replaced the 1967 ammendment, then we would have the same situation - as anal sex for consenting heterosexual adults would never have been decriminalised in the first place.

Back to the topic though; he still clearly thinks having sex with a 15 year old would be both cool and humourous, making him a generally unpleasant and unadmirable person. The use of the phrase "I like 'em fresh" shows the kind of disreputable character he obviously is.
(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 19:37, closed)

You've made a connection there I didn't intend. I was implying that you believing that the OP's legal actions are morally wrong enough for you to insult him is similar to the kind of insults plenty of people would want to give me for my perfectly-legal homosexuality. I wasn't saying that you are homophobic yourself, simply that your moral judgement and attack comes across as similar to theirs.

"he still clearly thinks having sex with a 15 year old would be both cool and humourous"

On what are you basing this? He dated a 15 year old, and he implied he never had sex with her. So how have you concluded the reverse, and assumed he thinks it funny no less?

What's wrong with "I like 'em fresh" when talking about women older than sixteen? Rape jokes and Maddie jokes are okay, but any that hint at the sexuality of young women are not?

Being sensitive about paedophilia is fine, but don't you think being so sensitive and abusively vocal about humour surrounding that issue when there's a distinct lack of complaint regards any other smacks of joining a public indignation bandwagon? The intoxicating drug of being part of a lynch mob that keeps the Daily Mail in circulation?

Why, above all else, does the issue of underage sex whip the British public into a frenzy of medieval anger more than anything else? To the point where so many people here feel it acceptable to call a complete stranger a "cunt" if he dares to legally date an underage teen, legally have sex with a (presumably) willing partner over the age of consent, and make a mild self-depreciating joke about it?

Does nobody feel ashamed at the level of bile that they're feeling in themselves when they do that?
(Musuko, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 22:19, closed)

Musuko for Prime Minister
If America can have a black, we can have a gay!
(Bam Bam McPenis will change all this when he is fuhrer., Thu 4 Dec 2008, 23:37, closed)

Oh god...
...I've got visions of the Prime Minister sketches in Little Britain.

Well, except with roles reversed, I suppose.
(Musuko, Fri 5 Dec 2008, 11:14, closed)

I'll only vote for him if he ammends the Sexual Offences Act

(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Sun 7 Dec 2008, 12:18, closed)

In what way would you like it ammended, esteemed voter?
(Musuko, Mon 8 Dec 2008, 14:19, closed)