Woman charged with raping boy, 14

[Agnapostate]

Kinda my point, it's not suppose to be, but many people think it is and this makes some (like me) not even like the act at all, others just get clearer ideas of what sex is. The few who never expected it are actually the better ones ...

But isn't that also an indication of a somewhat biased perspective? It's not difficult for me to say: I like sex. I would have banged a hot teacher if I could have.

 

[KittenKoder]

It's a minefield for a bloke. If he isn't slobbering all over here he's not interested or gay (all together now, "not that there's anything wrong with that" ). If he is slobbering all over her he's an oversexed grub (probably not far from the truth). It takes some of us a while to learn that gentle seduction begins with an offer of coffee (or tea) in the morning and continues until "later that night."

That reminds me, the definition of foreplay in Australia.

"You awake love?"

I love coffee ... I won't even give men the time of day anymore unless the first thing they ask is "wanna grab a bite" or "wanna get some java". Almost all the men that have approached me it's always "wanna go back to my place" ... blech.

 

[Agnapostate]

I love coffee ... I won't even give men the time of day anymore unless the first thing they ask is "wanna grab a bite" or "wanna get some java". Almost all the men that have approached me it's always "wanna go back to my place" ... blech.

In other words, you enjoy the subtlety that George Costanza doesn't care for?

 

[Diuretic]

I sense a generational shift, I don't get that. Really, I don't.

Has anyone got a flashlight? My cave is very dark and I need to do some cave painting....can't go outside, the dinosaurs are roaming around

 

[Agnapostate]

lolwut?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I sense a generational shift, I don't get that. Really, I don't.

Has anyone got a flashlight? My cave is very dark and I need to do some cave painting....can't go outside, the dinosaurs are roaming around

What do you mean? Did men not ask girls out to coffee or directly to their place when Fred Flintstone was your neighbor?

When I was in high school there was this trend of people dating only within their circle of friends. That whole "friends first" BS. I thought it was only in my experience but I read about it in a sociology class in college a few years later. I'm non-traditional to be sure, but if a girl had to get to know me first I suspected she was not physically attracted to me to the extent I'd require. More in line with the topic my first crush was on my 3rd grade teacher while I was in 3rd grade. I must admit I'm not surprised nothing ever happened, but I would have been thrilled if it had.

 

[Diuretic]

What do you mean? Did men not ask girls out to coffee or directly to their place when Fred Flintstone was your neighbor?

1. Would you like to go out for coffee?
2. How about you come back to my place?

Now, for ten points, can anyone tell me the differences in these two questions?

Your responses will tell me a lot about your values

 

[LiveUninhibited]

What do you mean? Did men not ask girls out to coffee or directly to their place when Fred Flintstone was your neighbor?

1. Would you like to go out for coffee?
2. How about you come back to my place?

Now, for ten points, can anyone tell me the differences in these two questions?

Your responses will tell me a lot about your values

Asking somebody out to coffee suggests that you want to get to know them personally and hear what they have to say about whatever you talk to them about between sips. Asking somebody to go back to your place directly means that your primary concern at that moment is getting laid ASAP. Which approach is "better" depends on the person you're pursuing and what your objectives are. There's no need to suspect that asking them to have sex immediately means you can't get to know them and see if you have more in common than lust. But this approach is not usually prudent even during these more liberal times.

I've done both. The problem with the coffee one is they'll often say yes even if they're not interested because it would be presumptuous of them to say, "I have a boyfriend," when you asked for something as innocent as going out for coffee. Then if they're not interesting to talk to, you've wasted your time. The problem with the direct approach is she might be psycho and poke holes in your condoms or have a pscyho brother/father. I do like the coffee one though because I like to talk and I think more clearly when I masturbate prior to a first date, lol.

 

[KittenKoder]

One thing that would help for men is when they catcall and get ignored, instead of screaming out prude or lesbo (or some other label they think is an insult) ... try just shutting up. Maybe the next time, if they just say a simple "hi", more women would actually stop to talk or at least acknowledge them.

 

[inquisitive]

Some guys make it sound like all they do is think of sex,and that's all they want. Almost like an addiction. Doesn't that put pressure on guys with less intense sex drives?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Some guys make it sound like all they do is think of sex,and that's all they want. Almost like an addiction. Doesn't that put pressure on guys with less intense sex drives?

Sex can be addictive as any pleasureable thing can be. I don't think that's limited to men, but it's definitely not as socially acceptable for women to openly have a sex addiction. When a teenaged boy is promiscuous we call him a stud. When a teenaged girl does the same we call her a slut.

I don't think sex is all most guys want, it's just that it's seen as a physical need first and foremost. More often for girls they want the emotional aspect as a prerequisite. For most guys and a smaller number of girls (though I heard this changes when women reach their 30s), it's kind of like if somebody in the desert is desperate about getting a drink of water and somebody asks them, "Do you only think about water?" Sure there's masturbation, but that's like stale muddy water. Though to get laid you have to act like you're not desperate to get laid and could get laid with anybody but you only want them.

As far as pressure on guys with less intense sex drives... I don't think so... There's some stigma attached to guys who never have the guts to talk to a girl or are still virgins, but that doesn't have much to do with how often they want sex. That's more of an issue between them and their partner/s.

 

[KittenKoder]

Live is right ... hell, I can't even improve on it.

 

[tigerbob]

What do you mean? Did men not ask girls out to coffee or directly to their place when Fred Flintstone was your neighbor?

1. Would you like to go out for coffee?
2. How about you come back to my place?

Now, for ten points, can anyone tell me the differences in these two questions?

Your responses will tell me a lot about your values

The difference is about 3 hours.

 

[inquisitive]

Some guys make it sound like all they do is think of sex,and that's all they want. Almost like an addiction. Doesn't that put pressure on guys with less intense sex drives?

Sex can be addictive as any pleasureable thing can be. I don't think that's limited to men, but it's definitely not as socially acceptable for women to openly have a sex addiction. When a teenaged boy is promiscuous we call him a stud. When a teenaged girl does the same we call her a slut.

I don't think sex is all most guys want, it's just that it's seen as a physical need first and foremost. More often for girls they want the emotional aspect as a prerequisite. For most guys and a smaller number of girls (though I heard this changes when women reach their 30s), it's kind of like if somebody in the desert is desperate about getting a drink of water and somebody asks them, "Do you only think about water?" Sure there's masturbation, but that's like stale muddy water. Though to get laid you have to act like you're not desperate to get laid and could get laid with anybody but you only want them.

As far as pressure on guys with less intense sex drives... I don't think so... There's some stigma attached to guys who never have the guts to talk to a girl or are still virgins, but that doesn't have much to do with how often they want sex. That's more of an issue between them and their partner/s.

I love sex just as much as the next person, but I hate when ppl act like we are CONTROLLED by our libido. Some ppl(mainly men) act like they are going to die if they dont get it. Least that's what one of my old boyfriends told me.

ETA-that last sentence was a little joke, but I'm sure it's true for someone, somewhere, LOL!

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Some guys make it sound like all they do is think of sex,and that's all they want. Almost like an addiction. Doesn't that put pressure on guys with less intense sex drives?

Sex can be addictive as any pleasureable thing can be. I don't think that's limited to men, but it's definitely not as socially acceptable for women to openly have a sex addiction. When a teenaged boy is promiscuous we call him a stud. When a teenaged girl does the same we call her a slut.

I don't think sex is all most guys want, it's just that it's seen as a physical need first and foremost. More often for girls they want the emotional aspect as a prerequisite. For most guys and a smaller number of girls (though I heard this changes when women reach their 30s), it's kind of like if somebody in the desert is desperate about getting a drink of water and somebody asks them, "Do you only think about water?" Sure there's masturbation, but that's like stale muddy water. Though to get laid you have to act like you're not desperate to get laid and could get laid with anybody but you only want them.

As far as pressure on guys with less intense sex drives... I don't think so... There's some stigma attached to guys who never have the guts to talk to a girl or are still virgins, but that doesn't have much to do with how often they want sex. That's more of an issue between them and their partner/s.

I love sex just as much as the next person, but I hate when ppl act like we are CONTROLLED by our libido. Some ppl(mainly men) act like they are going to die if they dont get it. Least that's what one of my old boyfriends told me.

I don't know if "the next person" necessarily loves sex in the same way. I've known girls who want it multiple times a day, but some who want it less than once a week. Some girls are pretty complicated sexually and they wouldn't enjoy sex with most people. Due to a bad experience I've heard many girls don't like sex much, and a majority prefer chocolate over sex. In contrast, a friend of mine summed up how it commonly is for men, upon seeing a girl he doesn't find attractive he would say, "It would still feel good," and we'd laugh at him.

Unlike my rough analogy on thirst for water, nobody is actually going to die from not having sex, at least not in an acute sense. Yes, blue balls can be uncomfortable and one can feel antsy, stressed, and edgy without getting a release. If I were a guy who found myself feeling the need to pressure a girl I'm with in sex, though, I might just conclude that we're not sexually compatible. But then leaving her would mean not having sex available at all for an unknown amount of time. Sex isn't the only important thing for a relationship, but it's necessary unless both people have low sex drives.

 

[Care4all]

I was watching a series on the History Channel a little while back called, The History of Sex.....

Well, a part of the show went in to women and men, and why they respond the way they do regarding sex....

It said that women are much more precautious with their sexual relations with men when they are young because they deep inside are looking for the right man to marry and be a good father to their children....and monitary factors come in to play....not always the best looking guy gets the best looking girl...but the guy that has all the right characteristics in being a great father, mate and provider....

Men, have the desire to spread their own seed, they have a deep inside mechanism that says...my genes and bloodline, are going to survive and multiply....some have this desire more than others and this also comes from their ancestry somehow....

Then it went on to say about women, is that once they have their on solid ground mate, and they have had some children with him, they may stray and go for the STUDley good looking, buff guy and have his children as well, while with her original mate...without either's knowledge, the lover stud with the strong studley genes does not know it is his child she bears, nor the husband does not know it is not his child....

(I was quite surprised at this and of course the show was speculating in my opinion, but who knows?)

It says she did this to make certain her seed would also survive in case of plague or other things that might kill off her weaker seedling...offspring....that the studley, strong lover's seed could overcome.

It said that men too, pick a woman that they see as being a good mother and have her at home as primary woman...but they too continue to have sex outside this marriage to spread their seed....or continue to marry other women to bear their children...

----------------------------------------------------------------

Now having said all of that.....

Do you think birth control and rubbers and spermicides etc are getting in the way of this natural process and if it is, and intentionally so.....

are we confusing all of our inside mechanisms that gave us enjoyable sex for reproduction and the passing on of our seed?

Are the stereo types that have been there for woman still appropriate?

Are women's inhibitions dropping because of birth control or do they no longer have the desire for what once meant most to them, a child...carrying on her own bloodline, an offspring?

And are men having a stronger desire to screw more women because they know that many will not be able to pass on their offspring due to BC?

I dunno, i think there are probably another kazillion questions on this that have come to mind but does anyone want to take a stab at the questions that did make it in to writing...?

care

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Now having said all of that.....

Do you think birth control and rubbers and spermicides etc are getting in the way of this natural process and if it is, and intentionally so.....

are we confusing all of our inside mechanisms that gave us enjoyable sex for reproduction and the passing on of our seed?

Well, studies have suggested that birth control does have the potential disadvantage of making the women prefer the scent of different kinds of men than she would while off birth control. e.g. same immunological profile, as indicated by phermones, versus different. If I recall correctly somebody conjectured that while a woman was pregnant in pre-civilization societies she tended to seek comfort with relatives. Birth control basically makes your body think it's pregnant even though it isn't to prevent ovulation.

However, controlling when and if pregnancy occurs was huge for empowering women. Women who are serially pregnant are at higher risk for certain health problems and it is much less viable for them to have careers. This was fine when the idea was to produce the maximum number of offspring but bad when you want to produce an egalitarian society.

The natural mechanisms you described exist for exactly one reason. In the context of pre-civilization humanity and species that came before them it maximized the number of viable offspring for the next generation. Men do have different natural inclinations than women because the strategy that maximizes their viable offspring is different. Jealousy has likely always existed as it is a mechanism of trying to mimimize people using you like a cuckoo.

About 56 of the Old World species and 3 of the New World species are brood parasites, laying their eggs in the nests of other birds

Cuckoo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much like our metabolism, natural sexual impulses can conflict with the context of a modern world, e.g. we have norms that directly conflict with typical male inclinations (monogamy). However, I would argue that sex is the addiction that is healthy to feed in that same context. Studies show that having lots of sex in a stable relationship reduces stress, lengthens life, and helps bring couples together. Without sex that outlet is not available and life would be much less enjoyable and also shorter.

Are the stereo types that have been there for woman still appropriate?

Are women's inhibitions dropping because of birth control or do they no longer have the desire for what once meant most to them, a child...carrying on her own bloodline, an offspring?

I don't think so. Inhibitions are dropping off largely because of cultural changes. In the Victorian era it was considered abnormal for a woman to enjoy sex. She was supposed to lie back and, "think of the empire." America's puritannical heritage is scarcely better.

But there was a reason for such strict morals during those times. There were no paternity tests. A woman who philanders about was going to produce bastards, but these days birth control makes that less likely, and thus makes it less likely that fornication/adultery will produce unwanted children.

And are men having a stronger desire to screw more women because they know that many will not be able to pass on their offspring due to BC?

I don't think so. Men want to screw a lot of women because that's what produced more viable offspring when natural selection pressures were there, but it's not because they have an actual conscious desire to produce offspring. Natural selection isn't occurring in the same way it used to, if at all, so there is nothing driving such a change. On a conscious level men desire sex for the feeling and release. This may make them not want to use a condom, but not because they want to produce more babies.

 

[AllieBaba]

I sense a generational shift, I don't get that. Really, I don't.

Has anyone got a flashlight? My cave is very dark and I need to do some cave painting....can't go outside, the dinosaurs are roaming around

What do you mean? Did men not ask girls out to coffee or directly to their place when Fred Flintstone was your neighbor?

When I was in high school there was this trend of people dating only within their circle of friends. That whole "friends first" BS. I thought it was only in my experience but I read about it in a sociology class in college a few years later. I'm non-traditional to be sure, but if a girl had to get to know me first I suspected she was not physically attracted to me to the extent I'd require. More in line with the topic my first crush was on my 3rd grade teacher while I was in 3rd grade. I must admit I'm not surprised nothing ever happened, but I would have been thrilled if it had.

Yes, well, when I was 13 I wanted to leave my home, live in the hills (in the winter) "off the land". When I was much younger, I was convinced I levitated at night. I'm thankful I didn't put that theory to the test and attempt to fly.

What kids want and what is good for them, or even legal, are two different things. One of the most difficult aspects of child molestation is the guilt children feel over their willing participation and enjoyment of it.

That doesn't mean it's not a crime. It is, and it should be.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Yes, well, when I was 13 I wanted to leave my home, live in the hills (in the winter) "off the land". When I was much younger, I was convinced I levitated at night. I'm thankful I didn't put that theory to the test and attempt to fly.

What kids want and what is good for them, or even legal, are two different things. One of the most difficult aspects of child molestation is the guilt children feel over their willing participation and enjoyment of it.

That doesn't mean it's not a crime. It is, and it should be.

I'm a bit weary of government making people do what's good for them instead of letting them make their own mistakes. I think informed consent is a very useful standard here. One could easily argue that lying and manipulating somebody into sex is not informed consent and age is not the factor except in establishing reasonable suspicion of abuse.

In practice it means that instead of checking somebody's fake ID before having sex with them, you converse with them enough to know their actual maturity and mental status. Then you can be brought to court on suspicion (probable cause) of abuse if you have sex with somebody of suspect age but convicted only based upon violation of informed consent.

You thought irrational things when you were 13. Well some adults think irrational things all the time. When I was 13 I was slightly more selfish and slightly more reckless but I knew very well the potential consequences of sex. Not all 13 year olds do. Not all 13 year olds are the same. So it might be okay for an 18 year old to have sex with one 13-year old but not another, just as it might be okay for them to have sex with a normal 21 year old but not a retarded 21 year old.

People feeling guilt over somebody taking advantage of them or having sex is mostly indicative of a society with irrational norms. I'd take a pretty firm guess that most 14 year old "boys" would not feel ashamed after having sex with an adult female, but most 14 year old girls would. The difference is cultural, though.

 

[SilentAugust]

Here's a solution I've been able to hold on to for a very long time.

Not have sex. I've never had sex, nor do I plan to, and it's really not that important to me. Cause frankly I got better things to do with my time. Now here's the million dollar question... does that make me weird, or the only sensible island in the ocean?

Sex, to me, is an instinct. It is, coming from a God-believer, a gift that lets people actually enjoy their married lives. In its most natural form, sex is about absolutely nothing except reproduction. The pleasure we get from it ensures that we want to reproduce as much as possible, as fast as possible, because ultimately that is the one thing every living being in the universe wants: more of itself.

So, ultimately, my opinion is that the more we enjoy sex purely for the carnal pleasure it brings, the closer we get to being animals, and I enjoy being a human kthnx. A 14 year old who doesn't feel guilty about having wanton sex is because he's giving in to base urges and impulses and is losing sense of human rationality. I mean, quite frankly, just read the book "Brave New World." A future of uninhibited (no offense live) people is not a joyful, expansive one, but one of inward, selfish people who learn to be so callous that no amount of horror can get through.

That is why sex should be a controlled, thoughtful process instead of the "Hey I'm hot wanna bang me" mentality that lets cases like teacher sex happen.