State Ok's underage stripping.

reply to post by SuperSlovak


A child molester wouldnt be interested in a 16 or 17 year old girl.

They arent children.

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by SuperSlovak

 

A child molester wouldnt be interested in a 16 or 17 year old girl.

They arent children.

they're underage. In the rest of the world anyway. So they are targets.

reply to post by SuperSlovak

Originally posted by SuperSlovak

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by SuperSlovak

 

A child molester wouldnt be interested in a 16 or 17 year old girl.

They arent children.

they're underage. In the rest of the world anyway. So they are targets.

If I may quote you?

This brain fart just makes it easier for child molesters to do what they do best.

Yes, your originally statement was targeted at "child molesters" which brainwreck corrected you by stating that 17 year olds are not children.

So your child molester argument is irrelevant.




[edit on 2/17/2010 by dalan.]

[edit on 2/17/2010 by dalan.]

reply to post by SuperSlovak


in the rest of what world? 18 is not the age of consent in a very large number of countries.

Hell, 18 isnt even the age of consent here in Nevada.

Humans are done, we have going down the tubes. You guys supporting this r sick. Ats has been overtaken by pos. most things should be age 20.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by walsbg22]

Originally posted by walsbg22
Humans are done, we have going down the tubes. You guys supporting this r sick.

Ats has been overtaken by pos.

Human beings are done, and/or going down the tubes, because our average age for mating our females has been fluid over the centuries and has gone from a "biologically acceptable" 12 and 13 up to 18 and 20 and is now slowly adjusting back to a reasonable 17?

I guess I don't understand.

The upward shift is due to the growing life expectancy in my opinion. Our ancestors, even as recently as 100 years ago, were forced to breed as soon as they were able, because they didn't live to be 80 like we do now. We now have the "luxury" of waiting until we are in our 20's to decide to have children, and technology is making it possible to have children into our 40's and 50's.

Churches and Religions may have attached themselves to this movement via morality, but it was really just an issue of biology.

Plus, we are talking about stripping, not prostituting, although my position doesn't really change from one to the other.

i love stuff like this.

most of us are so programmed we hardly realize how much. Age issues are only one of the examples.

on the one hand, from a purely so called 'evolutionary' standpoint....any animal capable of reproduction is fair game, morality shouldnt even enter into the equation. I say that from an optimally detached standpoint irrespective of such invented and contrived concepts such as morality or ethics.

on the other hand, viewing human beings not as animals just for 'propagating the species' but as perhaps 'spiritual' creatures and/or possessing higher intelligence than other animals it behooves 'rational' man to take into account a variety of implications of sexualizing young examples of their race/kind.

has anyone ever had a dog or a cat that got pregnant really young and gave birth and wondered what the hell was going on? I have....ive seen cats giving birth that you could tell they were totally not ready for it..didnt want it, etc...and sometimes those same cats abandoned their offspring etc. From a practical standpoint one could argue that cat/dog/animal had no business having offspring (being sexually active or advertising such). But from an evolutionary standpoint there can be no such argument. If an animal gives off pheromones and is 'ripe' and ready for producing offspring that is ALL that is required.

I hate seeing all the double speak on issues like this. People that believe in true evolution should have no qualms about the sexuality of those that are able to be impregnated and give birth. Religious types should have no qualms for their own reasons since most religions in one way or the other sanction or have in the past allowed very young women to be married or engage in reproductive behavior. That leaves me wondering where in the hell this 'righteous indignation' is coming from about young women being paraded around as the sexual reproductive entities they are?

like Carlin said, all im lookin for is a little bit of consistency.....can anyone show me some???

(yeah, by the way, i dont think anyone with any serious intelligence is arguing in favor of girls under puberty, even that goes against the most basic and natural laws of nature since only ripe/mature things can procreate....)

reply to post by walsbg22


Most things should be age 20? Are you serious?

How about being tried as an adult for crimes? Think 20 years old still?

no we like trying 9 year olds as adults when they kill someone or do some terrible thing to someone else.....but when it involves their choice to have sex then theyre treated 'as a kid' that isnt capable of understanding the implications of their decisions.... ya like that?!?!?! personally i think that anyone that is capable of making such fantastic leaps back and forth as it suits their a priori ideas of the world is worse off than any kid....

anyway, who am i.....im just some guy that hopes every once and a while to find some examples of intelligence, soundness of mind, and rational thought among my so called species.....but most of the time i just find ppl who believe what they want to no matter how retarded and absurd it is....

reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire


So I take it you don't go to see "peelers"?
second line

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by brainwrek

 

It never ceases to amaze me on the attitude of so called conservatives that call for personal responsibility and liberty; so willing to force their ideology, morals, aesthetics and attitudes on others, in effect, taking away their liberty.

Hypocrites

We do not push our morals on anybody any further than the Golden Rule, and an Eye for an Eye, etc.

That is such BS!!! Are you trying to tell me that your Gods, Rush, Sean, Savage, Rev. P. Robertson, M. Reagan, O' Rilly, Beck are just calling for the Golden Rule and an Eye for an Eye. Please..........

Are you trying to tell me that Conservatives don't want America to be a strictly Christian nation? Read this....

westernexperience.wordpress.com...

And while you are at it read this as to the conservative agenda.

www.newamericancentury.org...







[edit on 17-2-2010 by whaaa]

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by SuperSlovak

 

in the rest of what world? 18 is not the age of consent in a very large number of countries.

Hell, 18 isnt even the age of consent here in Nevada.

You know what i find really crazy, the age of consent in Iowa is 16!!

So according to Iowa law, the 17 yo girl was legally able to give consent to sex, but a legal question was raised when she stripped???

Wikki on Ages of consent

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by whaaa

 

Stripping is a bit different than public nudity, as it's explicitly sexualized.

I think it's pretty horrible, but it's a state's rights issue. Here's hoping nobody frequents any establishment that actually follows through and employs underage dancers. It'll be a non-issue if nobody makes any money on it. Nobody will employ underage girls if nobody pays to see it.

I'd frequent and support them... cheap alcohol and naked hot girls equal good times. I don't give a f what unaffected strangers think, me stuffing $1 bills in a 17 year olds thong might be keeping her from porn or prostitution.. I dated a stripper who paid her way through USC with $1 bills that smelled like urine. As long as her parents decide she's old enough: its none of your business.

Me admiring female nipples wont interfere with your daily routine.. YOU don't like it?, great.. capitalism says you can punish them by taking your shopping dollar elsewhere... or use the few rights we have left, vote against it.

Hate until the cows come home, grrrrrrr.. GREAT!... you're welcome to sit home and judge what strangers consider "fun", but don't tell others they can't partake in activities because you, sitting at home, don't approve.

I put up with aggressive wars, torture, show trials, incompetent 2 party recycled failure, bloody occupations... and all manner of naaaasty govt sanctioned death & misery behavior I don't like & vote against... nipples & naked girls are much less harmless and kill fewer people.

reply to post by JPhish


A star for sanity...and coming from a younger mind.

Extremes can go in both directions but in who's interpretation?
Everything goes back to cause and effect.

reply to post by whaaa


Are you telling me that you think any of those talking heads speak for actual Americans? The worst thing that ever happened to the Tea Parties was Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck!

Talk to your Conservative neighbors and you will probably find they are pretty normal, and not at all like Fox News or MSNBC would have you believe.

A "strong, independent woman" should be able to do whatever she wants at any age. She should be able to whore around with whoever and whenever she wants, and dance around nude in front of whoever she wants. She should not be forced to have children, that is like slavery in a patriarchal society. SHe should be able to have a "career" and if she gets mad at her husband, kick him out and take all his money. Then she can concentrate on her "career" while putting the kids in government funded daycare, instead of the patriarchal slavery of raising her own kids, and having a husband. Once she turns forty, she might be a little upset, but just take lots of xanax and zoloft, and she will get right over it. And, bonus, she will pay TPTB taxes! Unlike an oppressed housewife.

And then, once her daughters are old enough to have boobs, they can become strippers because they won't understand ANY reason why it could be bad for them. GRRRL POWER! POWER TO YOU, YOU STRONG, INDEPENDENT WINNERS!

I think we're asking the wrong questions here. We should be asking 'How old is too young'. What I dont understand is why its immoral for a 17 year old to strip, but perfectly fine for a 15 year old to get a life sentence. Yes, I do realize there is a big difference but my point being America needs to decide on how to view the different ages Vs what is moral.

Live And Let Live!

If you don't like someones lifestyle, then don't be around them and mind your business.

You have the right to live your life the way you want. Just don't disturb others peace.

Don't like that a mature teen is stripping? Then look the other way. Self righteousness and shoving your nose in other peoples lives is going to solve NOTHING.

Don't want your teen stripping? Then that's what religion, moral values and family codes are for, WHILE they are living under your roof.

We humans aren't 'civilized.' We have 'needs' just like any other creature, and we find ways to exploit them. A suppression of natural urges is counter productive and results in depressive lifestyles where one is prone to explode with compressed passion.

The best we can do is embrace everything we are, and fine ways to channel our feelings, urges and energy where we can properly utilize them with least harm done.

Energy is just like water. You don't want the river to flood your house, but you can't build a damn without it busting or overflowing. You have to channel it.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Scarcer]

reply to post by Ghost in the Machine


I think the matter is some people would prefer to protect the females, especially the young ones, so they can live a more perfect life without exposure to the nastiness. Too many kids are being ruined at an early age. There is too much of a hurry to grow up. Where has the joy of our women and children gone?

This is just sad. Where are the parents? The young ladies that do this are just swept by the cutural degradation that has swept though this country. Most of this young ladies have not been thought self respect, and instead of teaching these young ladies self respect they just seek to exploit them.