Was with a 15 year old when i was 22
That was naughty I know. She was nearly 16 though. But i didnt ever break the law with her so I guess that was OK. She actually finished with me :)

So I started dating her slightly older mate who was 16.

When I was 24 I started dating a 17 year old. that lasted a year. Then when I was 25 I started dating another 17 year old..

What can I say? I like em fresh :)

Though I've swung the other way now and had a go on a 31 year old. That was interesting :D
(Miggyman, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 15:38, 21 replies)

OH GOD

( mike woz ere 7442200 & 7696970 getter, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 16:05, closed)

^this

( likeajackhammer, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 16:28, closed)

*Forwards to police*

( baldmonkey a frothy foul-smelling vaginal discharge, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 16:16, closed)

you
utter utter cuntflap
( mark morrisons prison shoes I love Willie, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 16:16, closed)

You, sir, are a cunt.

( sm.pl.crt.rs I don't fucking know, do I?, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 16:18, closed)

YOU FUCKING CUNT
You need to be on the register.
( Gooch Is neither here nor there, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 16:44, closed)

Rabble rabble, moral indignation,
rabble rabble etc.
(Bam Bam McPenis will change all this when he is fuhrer., Thu 4 Dec 2008, 16:47, closed)

"But i didnt ever break the law with her so I guess that was OK"
Explain how this answers this QOTW then? Either you shagged her, making you a paedo, or you didn't, making you a QOTW timewaster and a hamtoucher to boot.
(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 17:30, closed)

Hold on, hold on. Don't get your Daily Mails in a twist.

DATING =/= SEX.

There is no law saying he can't DATE someone who is underage. And if the person who he's having SEX with is over 16, then that's perfectly legal too.

So with that out of the way, I can only presume your indignation is moral, and to that I can only question how on EARTH someone on B3TA can have the gall to be such a prissy little morality busybody.
(Musuko, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 17:32, closed)

The QOTW of the week is about sex
either he did it, making him a cunt, or he didn't, making him a cunt for not answering the question.

By "moral" indignation, are you refering to people being indignant about something that is wrong? I can't think what else it can mean.
(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 18:10, closed)

He said he dated a 15 year-old, but didn't break the law with her (implying no sex there).

He didn't say he had no sex with the other legal, older than 16, women.

So he possibly did answer the question. You didn't think to ask before you assumed, did you?

Still a cunt?

I'm defending him because you're perfectly justified in insulting him if he's offended the law, but not if he's just offended your morality. I get a little bit touchy about things like that, what with being a "faggot" and all.

Wrong is entirely subjective. 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?

That's some big head you've got there if that's the case. The democracy we've got going decides that it's okay for him to have sex with anyone over 16 who is consenting...but it's wrong because YOU think it's wrong.

Understand why I'm defending him yet?
(Musuko, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 18:15, closed)

If he didn't have sex with her,
his answer is not relevant to the QOTW, making him a cunt. I hate having to repeat myself, but you seem to be ignoring this point. If he didn't have sex with her, then he obviously believes it would have been funny if he had (or else, why mention it?) and that also makes him a cunt.

My belief is that having sex with a 15 year old girl is wrong. There is, I think you'll find, a general consensus on that. The law also agrees - so quite how you've come to the conclusion that I believe my morality to "trump the law" is a mystery to me and I would be grateful if you would explain your logic. No one has said that him having sex with the 16 and 17 year olds was wrong.

Really, no I don't understand why you are defending him because he is either a paedophile or QOTW timewaster, both of which make him a cunt still. You're putting forward a straw man argument; pretending that I said he was wrong for having sex with a 16 year old and then arguing with that.

Incidentally, since you brought up your own sexuality and assumed that I think it's wrong (because being against paedophilia must obviously make me homophobic too, in your eyes apparently) - anal sex is illegal for straight couples at any age; your lot getting special treatment is the bit that's wrong. The rest of us can go to jail for it, technically. Is that fair?
(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Thu 4 Dec 2008, 18:36, closed)

??
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, closed)

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)

"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, closed)

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)