I've been wondering what you think and how it compares to your views and personal experience:

I had erections since I was about 5 years old and was completely aware of my attraction towards women
I saw my first erotic entertainment programme on tv (just naked women) when I was 11
I masturbated and orgasmed when I was almost 12
I was STRONGLY attracted to my Polish teacher when I was 12 (she was in her 20s)

Some of the women I met later told me they saw their first "adult" videos at the age of 8 together with their female mates of the same age and have masturbated since the age of 3 or 4.

Now what does it have to do with religion and Christianity?

Well, since the sex-hating Christianity found its way into law and legal regulations, watching erotic entertainment and feeling happy at such age is illegal. Being a sexual being and having your own feelings and desires is illegal too. It is however perfectly OK to be a passive victim of a priest and have your body and/or mind damaged. Suffering is OK. Happiness is illegal.

Interestingly, the "age of consent" in my country is 15. The age for watching erotic entertainment is 18. In Russia, which for us is a neighbouring country, in the early 1900s it was customary for 16 year old girls to be married to a wealthy man in his 30s. Now that would be considered illegal. Once again - you can't legally watch people having sex on the screen even if you already legally do it yourself. A 100 yrs ago the same person who is not considered not old enough to watch it would be somebody's WIFE.

My main question is this:

1. why do we even call adult entertainment "adult"? It is clearly not watched only by adults and I suppose we have all seen it before the "arbitrary age".

2. why decide on the "proper age" for something as intimate and personal as discovering the world of one's own sexuality?

3. don't you feel "only for adults" sounds like "only for whites" or something? A kind of discrimination?

At the same time, it is perfectly OK for 7 year olds to watch people chopping off limbs and smashing brains in games or films - once again, the sex-hating and suffering-loving Christianity...

Now - by watching "adult" entertainment we are basically watching people who are having fun and being happy which makes us happy as well. What the hell is wrong with that?

And finally the ultimate question - were it not for the mutated Xtian pleasure-haters,

4. what would be so wrong in me approaching the 25 year old teacher while I am 12 and simply having some fun together?

If I was clearly willing and aware and so was she, the only problem seems to be not having children later? Do we have children with all people we date?

...So you want to know why it is illeagal to not involve Children in sex acts? Seriously?

Because at 12 or whatever age you want to push the 'age of consent' back to, a Child does not understand the totality of the desision he/she is being forced to make. Therfore if a Child can not protect him/herself then soceity has an obligation to do that for them by telling people who want to have sex with kids that they will be put in prision far removed from children.

---

Just an observation:

but, Wow. 20 people looked at this thread, and no one could be bothered to say anything against this? It this what it means to be atheist? To remain silent when someone openly wants to have sex with little kids?

....

(September 23, 2012 at 10:50 pm)Drich Wrote: ...So you want to know why it is illeagal to not involve Children in sex acts? Seriously?

Because at 12 or whatever age you want to push the 'age of consent' back to, a Child does not understand the totality of the desision he/she is being forced to make. Therfore if a Child can not protect him/herself then soceity has an obligation to do that for them by telling people who want to have sex with kids that they will be put in prision far removed from children.

So, Drich, which of these two do you think is better able to consent to a sexual relationship?

1) A 21 year old woman who is mentally retarded and, psychologically, is about the same as a ten year old.

or

2) A 16 or 17 year old who use a fake ID to get into a bar, gets drunk, sleeps with a guy and blackmails him with statutory rape charges if he doesn't buy them lots of expensive gifts.

(September 23, 2012 at 10:54 pm)TaraJo Wrote: ...So you want to know why it is illeagal to not involve Children in sex acts? Seriously?

Because at 12 or whatever age you want to push the 'age of consent' back to, a Child does not understand the totality of the desision he/she is being forced to make. Therfore if a Child can not protect him/herself then soceity has an obligation to do that for them by telling people who want to have sex with kids that they will be put in prision far removed from children.So, Drich, which of these two do you think is better able to consent to a sexual relationship?

1) A 21 year old woman who is mentally retarded and, psychologically, is about the same as a ten year old.

or

2) A 16 or 17 year old who use a fake ID to get into a bar, gets drunk, sleeps with a guy and blackmails him with statutory rape charges if he doesn't buy them lots of expensive gifts.

Did you not read the OP?!?!
do you not understand what is being discussed here? This guy wants to have sex with Kids. Why don't you have anything to say about that??

(September 23, 2012 at 10:54 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(September 23, 2012 at 10:50 pm)Drich Wrote: ...So you want to know why it is illeagal to not involve Children in sex acts? Seriously?

Because at 12 or whatever age you want to push the 'age of consent' back to, a Child does not understand the totality of the desision he/she is being forced to make. Therfore if a Child can not protect him/herself then soceity has an obligation to do that for them by telling people who want to have sex with kids that they will be put in prision far removed from children.

So, Drich, which of these two do you think is better able to consent to a sexual relationship?

1) A 21 year old woman who is mentally retarded and, psychologically, is about the same as a ten year old.

or

2) A 16 or 17 year old who use a fake ID to get into a bar, gets drunk, sleeps with a guy and blackmails him with statutory rape charges if he doesn't buy them lots of expensive gifts.

Can I choose both?
... what?

(September 23, 2012 at 10:50 pm)Drich Wrote: ...So you want to know why it is illeagal to not involve Children in sex acts? Seriously?

Because at 12 or whatever age you want to push the 'age of consent' back to, a Child does not understand the totality of the desision he/she is being forced to make. Therfore if a Child can not protect him/herself then soceity has an obligation to do that for them by telling people who want to have sex with kids that they will be put in prision far removed from children.

---

Just an observation:

but, Wow. 20 people looked at this thread, and no one could be bothered to say anything against this? It this what it means to be atheist? To remain silent when someone openly wants to have sex with little kids?

....

hock:
I just thought it was so obvious I didn't need to say it. I'm not sure why someone would be interested in sex prior to puberty, biologically, I mean. Sure, the age of consent could be lowered to sixteen (I'm pretty sure it's 18 in America)(we all know some of them are doing it regardless), but 12? Personally, I think the teacher would be creeped out if a 12 year old asked for sex. I admit that the religious laws regarding sex can be a bit strict, but what you propose is too much...

TaraJo Wrote:So, Drich, which of these two do you think is better able to consent to a sexual relationship?

1) A 21 year old woman who is mentally retarded and, psychologically, is about the same as a ten year old.

or

2) A 16 or 17 year old who use a fake ID to get into a bar, gets drunk, sleeps with a guy and blackmails him with statutory rape charges if he doesn't buy them lots of expensive gifts.

I think you can't give legal consent if imparied, I'm not sure if a mental disability falls into that category (it might).

Ciel_Rogue Wrote:Interestingly, the "age of consent" in my country is 15. The age for watching erotic entertainment is 18.

Okay, that doesn't make any sense.

Oh, if there are any teachers on this forum who might be influenced by this thread;
Please don't fuck your 12 year old pupils. Infact, could you avoid fucking pupils of all ages?
Thanks.

(September 23, 2012 at 10:58 pm)Drich Wrote: Did you not read the OP?!?!
do you not understand what is being discussed here? This guy wants to have sex with Kids. Why don't you have anything to say about that??

Yep. And I think he has points. When I was 13 or 14, I had a few people, teachers and otherwise, I would have loved to have sex with. I kinda feel uncomfortable with the idea of that being automatically rape. If I had exactly the same feelings and desires and thoughts and incentives just a few short years later, it would have been perfectly legal. And I hate how people can be charged with rape because a girl they had sex with lied to them about her age. And on the other hand, it bothers me how it can be perfectly legal to manipulate a naive 18 year old person into a sexual relationship they aren't ready for but can't engage in a relationship with someone who, while younger, is much more mentally/psychologically mature. Yes, I think the age of consent laws need to be reconsidered and reworked.

(September 23, 2012 at 10:50 pm)Drich Wrote: ...So you want to know why it is illeagal to not involve Children in sex acts? Seriously?

Because at 12 or whatever age you want to push the 'age of consent' back to, a Child does not understand the totality of the desision he/she is being forced to make. Therfore if a Child can not protect him/herself then soceity has an obligation to do that for them by telling people who want to have sex with kids that they will be put in prision far removed from children.

---

Just an observation:

but, Wow. 20 people looked at this thread, and no one could be bothered to say anything against this? It this what it means to be atheist? To remain silent when someone openly wants to have sex with little kids?

....

Yeeeah, was with you up until you equated people not commenting as all being atheist.
Could it be that maybe, just maybe the people who looked at it were guests and therefore not able to comment? Funny, I don't see comments from any other Christians here but you.
I mean its great you did comment on it but please don't be so fucking stupid as to make out that people who are atheists are somehow alright with paedophilia.
Its see-through, pathetic and has lowered my opinion of you even further.
I didn't even know that was possible.

---

(September 23, 2012 at 11:09 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(September 23, 2012 at 10:58 pm)Drich Wrote: Did you not read the OP?!?!
do you not understand what is being discussed here? This guy wants to have sex with Kids. Why don't you have anything to say about that??

Yep. And I think he has points. When I was 13 or 14, I had a few people, teachers and otherwise, I would have loved to have sex with. I kinda feel uncomfortable with the idea of that being automatically rape. If I had exactly the same feelings and desires and thoughts and incentives just a few short years later, it would have been perfectly legal. And I hate how people can be charged with rape because a girl they had sex with lied to them about her age. And on the other hand, it bothers me how it can be perfectly legal to manipulate a naive 18 year old person into a sexual relationship they aren't ready for but can't engage in a relationship with someone who, while younger, is much more mentally/psychologically mature. Yes, I think the age of consent laws need to be reconsidered and reworked.

Great, who judges which minors are both physically and psychologically equipped?
How do we judge people who decide they're ok with screwing children?
Is it not a safer and fairer approach to judge via age?

I do agree however if someone lies about their age charges should be dropped.

Hi Drich. Read this part of my post carefully:

(September 23, 2012 at 10:42 pm)Ciel_Rouge Wrote: It is however perfectly OK to be a passive victim of a priest and have your body and/or mind damaged. Suffering is OK. Happiness is illegal.

I am AGAINST forced sex involving CHILDREN, and in particular I am strongly AGAINST Christian priests doing that.

(September 23, 2012 at 10:58 pm)Drich Wrote: ...So you want to know why it is illegal to not involve Children in sex acts? Seriously?

Because at 12 or whatever age you want to push the 'age of consent' back to, a Child does not understand the totality of the desision he/she is being forced to make. Therfore if a Child can not protect him/herself then soceity has an obligation to do that for them by telling people who want to have sex with kids that they will be put in prision far removed from children.

Well, in your limited perspective sex seems to mean penetration. This could obviously cause bodily and mental harm. I am NOT advocating that. In fact, there have been a few scandals involving Christian priests doing just that ;-) I am NOT attracted to 12 year olds I was 12 MYSELF when I was attracted to a 25 year old teacher.

You seem to misread the whole thing.

Let me rephrase that to make it simple:

1. why do we call erotic entertainment "adult" when we have all watched it under the age of 18

2. why is the legal age for sex in Poland set at 15 in Poland while the legal age for "adult" entertainment is 18

3. Why do the Xtians like you want to "protect" people from masturbation and fantasy while they do not seem to protect them from anal rape by priests