But then, he said and twisted and turned (not squirmed, mind you), we get back to the OP and my initial question. I f the age of consent is the only thing we’re talking about here, I should be cool, dating you acicadasings. So far, in this thread, you’ve shown that you’re smart and can hold your own - qualities I look for in a fem. My lifestyle shouldn’t be something to hinder it, so why don’t I (if you wanted of course)?
This thread has been so much about ‘all men are so and so’ and age is ‘this and that’.
In fact, when I do date a girl, take her to bed or whatever, she tends to be 25-early 30’s. This is not related to her physical age - I don’t look for girls of a certian age, I llok for a certain personality and direction in life. Since I don’t have anything resembling an ‘adult’ life - which according to you and doreen seems to mean pension plans and mortgages :), it tends to work better for me, when I date a woman who has those things ahead of her too.
However, this still leads to ccomments about robbing the cradle, that I should stick to women my own age ASF. Yes, I do have an interest in this, since I’ve been up close and personal with the very issue. My ex-SO is 11 years my junior. She was 27 when we met. We ended up living together for two years. Oh boy, was there debate among her friends and my friends…
So we’re not only talking about teen girls in Britney-wear, we’re actually talking (or at least I am) about the mechanics surrounding this ‘thing’ that says older men is wrong when ogling young girls (and joking about it). It’s also not a question of references.
Even if you both say that you will not judge anyone solely on age, there are enough of those who do, to make me wonder why a big age diference is considered morally wrong or even bad and vile.
Different experiences ,I guess, because I’ve never had a debate with anyone about their choice in SO, least of all about their SO’s age.
But since you see this (and I do agree with you), surely you can see that if your friends mostly do have “adult” lives, it may not work for them, regardless of the woman’s actual age.
doreen. Yes, I would, had the comments been: " We really don’t see you guys and us ahving very much in common. We’re changing diapers and you’re nightclubbing."
It was not.
It was more like: “Oh, need something young to make you feel young ::vicious snarl::” Or: “Oh yeah, you’re pushing 40. That explains it.” Or (from her friends): “Yikes, why can’t he pick women his own age. He’s old. It’s Icky.”
The generational gap of all of 11 years was the big deal. Had I been prowling Bars where grad students hang out, trying to get laid, maybe I would have warranted those remarks. But we lived together, set up house together. Hardly something you do to get a little young tender female to brush off those “I’m getting to be 40”-blues.
I think this is the main point of misunderstanding, and a big part of the ultimate justification for the posts on the first page of this thread.
Making jokes and saying things like we were saying that seemed so disrespectful really weren’t, AFAIK. Guys think dirty thoughts all the time, but we can still hold very high respect for the girls we fantasize about. We often chuckle to ourselves when we think of the jokes in our minds. IMO the thought and the saying of the thought are morally indistinguishable. The real line is between the thought/joke/actually saying it out loud and the actually doing it. It isn’t even a line, there is an ocean of conscience, common sense, and reason between making a joke to a friend and actually carrying out what was said in that joke.
I believe that this arguement has nothing to do with ages, maturity, and whatnot. It is really about a common misconception that many women have about men. It seems that, just as there are many things about women that men can’t grasp, women have much trouble understanding this about men. My SO, who I have had meaningful discussions with for just about every day for the past year and a half, still has trouble understanding it. But it seems that there are women here that get it, and I’m sure that with time you will understand it also, cicada.
Again, guys think dirty thoughts all the time, but we can still hold very high respect for the girls we fantasize about.
Guys don’t have the market cornered on dirty thoughts. Unless I’m some kind of freak, women have lots of dirty thoughts about men too, only it seems that men are more willing to admit it.
And I suppose part of my gripe about men who seem to only look at really young chicks is related to the fact that I currently live in hell.
Yes, rural south western Pennsylvania, where there are many 25 - 30 year old men who have less teeth than a 2 year old and are looking for a 14 year old girl who’s hot for them because they can buy beer (on the same token, I seem to be attractive to 16 year old boys because I can legally buy beer).
As for what I like, I tend to prefer men between 25 and 35. However, to find one that’s worthwhile I think I will have to leave hickville. Now I’ve gotta get a JOB outside of hickville.
Welcome to the pit, personally I cant believe you still have intact skin let alone your eyebrows but you have somehow managed to dodge alot of blowtorches and flamethrowers the sharks that hang out in here keep handy.
heres what I want you to do, copy this entire thread and print it out, then burry it in a box somewhere so you can discover it in 15yrs or so and laugh at how silly some of the things you have posted are.
by the way your a 16 yr old girl with brains…lookin for a little 34yr old lovin?
I hope she hangs around the board after this thread is over. We need more people who can stay calm and reason even when they’re on the unpopular side of an argument.
Honestly and uncritically, welcome to the board, acicadasings, I hope you hang around. Your perseverance is impressive. I hope I was as eloquent when I was 16 on USENET not so many years ago.
I think it’s really hysterical, in a thread which touches on age-based generalizations, that we apparently have a sixteen-year-old who outdoes at thirty-four-old at spelling, grammar, punctuation, use of proper case, and general propriety.
::sheepishly raises his head from the derth of rocks he’s been living under:: Um… that quote of Punha’s… that’d be from me. I just registered here. He’s been showing me the stuff for quite some time now, but I’ve finally decided to join in the fun, so to speak. :o) And yeah, I guess my nose really does look like that…
I personally don’t think your ‘lifestyle’ should hinder your relationship with anybody, as long as there are plenty of qualities you can see in each other, and common ground you both DO share. Relationships between, say, a man in his forties and a girl not yet out of her teens ARE uncommon, because as a general rule, people of those ages have very different interests, situations, and levels of maturity and intelligence. This is why people, on first impression, will consider such a relationship to be ‘sordid,’ because it’s unlikely that they will see much potential ‘substance’ there. I’m aware that there are exceptions to the rule, and I think you’ll find most bright, reasonable observers will be open to accepting and understanding these.
I have no problem with a ten year (or wider) age gap in a relationship between two consenting adults, as I’ve stated already. I’m repeating myself, but I think that, while people continue to grow and develop mentally and emotionally throughout their lives, once we reach a certain age, and are safely out of the hormonal confusion of our teens, we are mature enough and sure enough of ourselves to know what we want. I think it’d be rather silly for people to shun somebody your age for being involved with someone ten years younger, and to accuse you of ‘robbing the cradle’ and ‘taking advantage,’ when you are both mature, sensible, consenting adults. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule as well, and I’m sure that there are plenty of legal adults who are still unsure of what they want, and uncomfortable with sex and relationships, and teens who know exactly what they are looking for.
I think that the ‘mechanics’ involved in why extreme age gaps are shunned by society, even when they are well within the law, are quite complicated. There is no one answer, and no one ‘solution.’ I’ve given my thoughts on possible reasons already, but I can’t say much more than that.
I think we’re going in circles now.
Critical1, what an appropriate name! Am I only ‘silly’ because I have a unpopular opinion, or is it the way I’ve expressed my feelings here? Because…while I’ve laughed at the WAY I’ve written things in the past, I’m very much aware that opinions change, and I wouldn’t take much pleasure in mocking my sixteen year old self in another fifteen years. This is, of course, ‘agreeing’ with your assumption that when I’m 30, I’ll suddenly change the way I feel about this. I can’t say with any assurance yet, but perhaps I feel this way about the issue in this thread for reasons OTHER than just how old I am. I’m also tired of the ‘when you hit thirty, everything will become clear’ attitude sometimes prevalent in this thread. It seems defensive, patronising, and unnecessary.
I agree with you, cicada, as things don’t become clearer when you hit 30. In fact, I find things getting more and more complicated. As I said erlier: Age is no guarantee for wisdom and youth is no excuse for stupidity.
OTOH, pray that you do evolve during these 15 years - it would be sad if you stayed emotionally and intellectually where you are now. I do know some people who lacks evolution and are basically the same now, as when they turned 18, almost 15 years ago.
However, not saying it will apply to this thread, I do have things saved, that I wrote during my high school years. Sheeesh. When reading that I think: “What a dork! Do I have anything in common with him but this body!?”
If yoy didn’t get a proper welcome from me earlier - here it is ::hands over::
You kept your cool in the shitstorm. That makes you a valuable addition to the board, as far as I’m concerned.
Seriously I don’t think your’e silly for holding an unpopular opinion. I have quite a few strong beliefs about life that don’t go over well with most people and I completly understand the difference between unpopular and simply stupid.
Also for the record it’s most certanly NOT for the way you express yourself. You post with a clarity that probably makes quite a few of your elders a bit envious.
I think your post is silly only from that mystical place of more life experience.
I mean you are telling us how offended, disgusted, and generally revolted by the posts in this thread when you have absolutly zero experience with the subject at hand. You CAN"T have any experience with the subject because there simply aren’t any post pubescent boys who are “to young” for you.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying I think your stupid, I just think you’re young. I think your fellings with this are the same as guys who are grossed out by their girlfriends periods. let me explain. Women start menstration at about 13 (please note I am not an expert here, I am tossing out a few numbers for a general kind of acuracy not for scientific research) and end somewhere around 50. so lets say a girl starts on her 13th birthday and ends on her 53rd birthday. thats 40 years of menstration. following the lunar cycle thats 13 periods per year for 40 years meaning that barring a few missed here and there and pregnacies she will have 520 periods in her lifetime. so will your sister, your daughter, your mother, your grandmother, all your aunts, yes I am talking about every single woman on the entire friggin planet, for the entire course of human history. how can you possibly be grossed out by something that is one of the defining features of the female sex?
yes having dirty thoughts about nubile young women is a defining feature of the male.
and we can post here and laugh here because we have all been through it, we all know what the op was talking about, and perhaps most important of all NONE of us are out trying to get these girls in the sack.
not to burst your bubble here but this includes your father, and to be really honest hes even had a few of these thoughts about you.
And Mudd, I leave my sense of general propriety at the door when I enter the pit.
I don’t know what is wrong with me in this regard. While I have aged physically (to my dismay) I have the inquisitiveness that I has as a teenager, the cocky, self-assured nature I had as a teenager (which is now ripe with the irony that I assert things like relativism and a lack of fundamental truth, whereas before I knew damn well that nihilism was where it was at), and I’ve always been attracted to the same scope of women.
First, age (as mentioned in the GD thread) ranges from around 15-40’s. Secondly, personality: no fluff! I like my women chatty, but not inane chatter. If you can’t switch the conversation between philosophy, television, and then back to philosophy without a hitch: get out! Thirdly, I like assertive women. This last got me into “teacher crush” in high school as positions of power invariably produced assertive qualities I lusted for note: not into domination or bondage, just like assertive women).
One of my bosses, for example, is not a particularly stunning example of the species. However, we enjoy the same movies and she has power over me. Lust formula more or less fulfilled.
Of course there is more than that for genuine attraction, but that isn’t the subject of this post.
acicadasings (I like this username, BTW), let’s not get off on the wrong foot here, even though it is the pit (I’m not a pit denizen, FWIW). I have nothing against you here other than your insistence on saying nonsensical things. So let’s be clear, this thread is about two things: lusty thoughts, and the feelings the OPer (and more people in general) get from lusty thoughts over people they shouldn’t be feeling lust after.
Now, as a general rule, lusty thoughts do not in any way harm individuals, so there is no sense in which it is rude, unfair, or dirty to think such things. Not only could you not help what you think, it would be a pointless exercise anyway (they are just thoughts, not actions).
Let’s take this from the top, and I will try not to sound “hysterical”, and I will try not to accuse you of hysteria (obliquely or expicitly).
[vivisection by vBCode ON]
First misconception, and a dangerous one at that; that which it would be illegal or immoral to do is immoral to talk about. Please think on this for a bit before replying, as it is the thrust of your arguments. Very few of us here would give unqualified applause at anyone acting on [herein expressed] lust. In fact, I can’t think of anyone here doing such a thing, and we’ve had quite a few pedophilia/ephebophilia/yadda yadda debates before (which you aren’t necessarily privvy to, I understand). But whether or not you knew about this, it is still disingenious to curb expression when it was not only clear but stated that such expression was the limit of the train of events.
No, it isn’t, wasn’t, and never shall be. It started as a comment about looking at young girls and thinking lusty thoughts, realizing they were young girls and thinking lusty thoughts, and creating a possibly humorous story around it. Added to this were comments about how people shouldn’t be ashamed to recognize attractiveness. No one is hanging outside of schoolyards snapping pictures.
Attraction is in the eye of the beholder. Such a well-worn phrase that it amazes me it goes unnoticed by so many people, including (it seems) yourself. An oak chest of drawers does not seek to asthetically please me, yet it does so. A young girl/woman that I find attractive is, tautologically, attractive. There is nothing more to it than that.
Except, of course, when females do attempt to appear attractive. Is attempting to appear attractive an invitation to look?- yes, it has to be, since attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder, and one cannot be attractive without someone looking. The exception to this case is the mantra that people look good for themselves, in which case we still degenerate to the above: whether or not she wanted me to be attractive, she appears attractive. We look repeatedly and deeply at what we are attrated to; this is the minimum outward nature of attraction (this is how attraction manifests itself in humans). Saying things like “ogle” and “leer” put a spin on it, implying (presumably) hyperbolic obsession. Nevertheless, attraction is manifested by looking intently (of course the opposite is not necessarily true).
sigh Rose colored glasses, and a keen lack of questioning the assertion. Why are they emulating this person in the first place?
Very likely. A reference to the economic notion of hidden costs is in order here, and applies well to the nature of attraction in general. I want to look attractive so people will notice me. There are people I don’t want to notice me. Not drawing their attention will cause those I want to notice me to also not draw their attention. Catch-22? Of course not. Hidden cost; you want people to notice you, and people notice you. What more can be done in a general sense?
Of course not. And thankfully, no one asked them to. But they have done it. And here we are.
Here we reach a definite impasse; I think you have failed to appreciate the position at this time (whether you have learned as the thread wears on remains to be exposed in this post… I’m just running temporally here).
First, in what way is thinking disrespectful? Disrespect manifests itself how? Answer this question, then tell me how thoughts are disrespectful. Second, awful? Questionable certainly: thus the context of the thread: “Look at what I’m thinking, I shouldn’t be thinking this because it is something I would never do.” You want that we shouldn’t think such things; I ask you how this is to be done. Here is Critical1’s silliness.
I think about winning the lottery; I cannot win the lottery (well, it is possible, but I can’t make myself do it, at any rate). Though disrespectful and awful obviously don’t apply here, the reasoning should be similar; and yet, there is nothing wrong with this thought. Why not? I ask you to distinguish the two.
Jesus wronged all Christians everywhere when he said the man had already committed adultery in his heart, and you do a disservice to humans everywhere when you condemn their thoughts. That sounds rather mean, but I honestly cannot think of a nice way to say it. Thought is not and never shall be equated with action. And I’m not even trying to make a philosophical distinction, or a practical one: they simply are not the same thing. We need to get this out in the open, stated several times, dragged through the mud, rinsed off, and inspected again for clarity.
“I shouldn’t be thinking this: …” What can that possibly do? “I am thinking that I want to do this, but I shouldn’t do this.” Therein lies the essence of moral action or inaction (as the case may be). “If things were different, they wouldn’t be the same.”
Yet you clearly have, in this thread, an assortment of harmless thinking. I am at a loss.
sigh Remind me to have a long debate about context some time. Until then, let us consider that when we are talking about females being attractive, that is what is under discussion. When we are talking about women being integral members of society, that is what is under discussion. Please, please, please do not confuse the idea that one context consumes all contexts. IOW, we are talking about what we are talking about. When we talk about something different, we won’t be saying the same things. One discussion cannot be, and should not be, and would be pointless if it contained all things (it would never get anywhere!).
Should I mention, in a question about the physics behind black holes, that I really don’t want to know about where any black holes have been thought to exist? Of course not (at least, it should seem clear). What about theoretical physics, a la time travel? Should I put as an introduction to every time travel thought that “I know time travel hasn’t been proven to exist, but…”? Why should I when the question is, “Given our current understanding of physics, is time travel forbidden?”
I dare say everyone here knows women aren’t just for leering at. But we are talking about leering. Can you recognize the distinction?
I don’t think we read the same OP.
Ontology: the study of being. Not everything is lauded, derided; some things just are. Stating the way things are will often lead other humans to say, “Don’t I know it!” Note AlbertRose’s “thank you” towards you: the ultimate expression of “Don’t I know it” in this context.
Hidden assumptions abound! “Shown enough restraint” implies you think they are teetering on becoming some disgusting rapist or something. We all show enough restraint in our daily lives. We choose who to swear around (or choose not to swear at all), we think things about people we would never tell them (white lies: “Yes, you look fine!”), yadda yadda yadda. Our thoughts abound with options, and we choose to act on one of them (we can only ever do one thing once, is what I mean). So shoudl we congratulate people on doing what their supposed to? Of course not. But neither should we deride them because they thought about something it would be wrong to do.
Then the question remains: is wrong to speak about what it would be wrong to do? That’s what you’re offering us here, acicadasings. Is that really the door you wanted to open?
Of course! my goodness, the nature of desire is revealed: we wish to do that which we desire about. I desire oodles of money. What do you desire? Wait… don’t answer that.
First, obligatory reference to hidden assumptions. Second, if that was the case (and from what I know of the OP I find that suggestion slanderous), not how wonderful for him, how wonderful FOR THEM. You see?
This quote is taken from a diatrabe about how you “know” how to dress sexy, and that people you don’t want to find you sexy are going to find you sexy anyway. And then we come back to it: filthy. What is filthy? thinking about that which we shouldn’t or couldn’t do? Why does this apply to sexuality and attractiveness but not to, say, telling our parents off or leaving class whenever we darn well feel like it? And why could we discuss those things but not this? In short, what is so special about this case?
I’m not saying it is impossible for something to be special here; I am genuinely asking: what is special? Why is it special?
Here we have it again: the action is irrelevant, the thought is criminal. Please explain this; and, since the action is irrelevant, please do so without referencing action.
Bullshit. You just said it. I quoted it.
Ever read the book, Stranger in a Strange Land? A character there makes a general observation of humor: all humor is a variation of the pratfall. Whether you find it funny or not.
Emphasis added. Yes: that they were a bit older. So that they wouldn’t be thinking the same thoughts in an immoral way, but in a moral one. Yet you condemn them for the very thing you demand. sigh
Requoted, and emphasis added again. Yes: they express a desire to not have desires they can’t act upon or don’t want to act upon. How stunningly common. I wonder what makes this case special again, or how anyone could satisfy you in this special case (assuming it is special, that is, which I think has yet to be made clear).
Ontology: still the study of being. How is one rude? how does rude manifest itself? What is “being dirty?” Et cetera.
So here we are. Add the following sentence to the beginning of the thread: “Note: I do not consider pedophilia a good thing. I also do not consider that the sole purpose of women’s existence is to please me sexually.” Now is it ok? Why not?
In general. Context. In general. Context. Nope, didn’t get through to you at this juncture.
You seem to be out of touch with the conversation, at least as I see it. “Prude” is not appropriate here, we aren’t discussing actions. Though that point never seems to occur to you.
Grant us? You implied earlier that he was eager to press himself up against bodies on the train. You don’t grant us this. You apologize for mischaracterizing someone on a point you consider detrimental to one’s character. (note to self: watch hysteria… check).
Replace ‘teenagers’ with ‘people.’ Rinse, repeat. Refer to my comments about how attraction manifests itself in the eye of the attractee, and what the purpose of “being attractive” is for the attractor. Think deeply.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Yes, and we all laughed at the Three Stooges eating a loaded paint brush while mistaking it for a sandwich. Recall the notion that all humor is a variation of the pratfall, whether you find it funny or not. Recall that no one is saying anything in general about women.
False by inspection: if one thinks such a thing, mentions that one thinks such a thing, and others agree with thinking such things, ‘acknowledgement’ and ‘honesty’ seem appropriate words. They aren’t lying; they are agreeing. Honesty. Acknowldgement.
Aren’t we all. No one has stepped outside those bounds. Note the metaphor: stepped. Recall the distinction between action anf thought. think deeply. Note that in thinking deeply you have not acted.
Sing it, cicada. Good thing we aren’t saying anything about fundamental assumptions with respect to women.
Your first sentence seems to be a lie with regards to your second. I am at a loss to reconcile them. Why should one curb thoughts which one doesn’t intend to act on, and which one doesn’t base their whole motivation for action on? Really, what the hell would be the point?
This is a lie. You’ve repeated this lie twice. I directly quoted you saying such a thing which contradicts this. either that was a lie, or this is. If the other quote was, then you have several questions to answer which I have detailed in this post, and which I will summarize at the end for convenience.
