- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 1707 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
326 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 13533
How can he say that peado-teachers never get away with it, and that fucking a child doll is okay while being a teacher?
Too many fucking paedos and paedo-sympathisers in this thread.
|>>|| No. 13534
>but since I've read the ruling of R v Brown
Are you sure? Perhaps you're one of those people who are deliberately thick on the internet but the judgements did consider convention rights throughout and more importantly the ECHR itself later supported the conclusion of the HoL in Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v United Kingdom.
As for section 18 it's quite clear when you consider the next bit "with intent, to do some grievous bodily harm to any person". It's not 'inherent ambiguity' it's blanket.
|>>|| No. 13535
Watch out lads, the armchair lawyers are at it again.
|>>|| No. 13537
> Outside of a boxing ring I can't just consent to you punching my lights out for some pretty big personal and public interest reasons and I don't think a clear solution can exist to this problem unless we ban everything.
What is it about the boxing ring that makes it an exception? Is it the contract, the public spectacle, the say-so of the governing body or whatever we have in the UK that makes do for an Athletic Commission? I've born witness to dozens of amateur MMA matches in the UK, judged a couple, and trained with a bunch of fighters and I still don't really get what exactly stops the bobbies coming in and charging both lads with ABH and, in the case of certain strangle holds, attempted murder.
|>>|| No. 13538
The rule is that in violent sports, the willing competitor consents to the violence that may arise as part of play. A punch to the face is fine in boxing, but not in rugby.
|>>|| No. 13539
I'd have you know that I barely passed Criminal Law at the undergraduate level!
There's waffle is the short answer. It comes down to it being culturally valued (displays of heroism -yes, a moral judgment), safety rules and the all important referee whose job it is to make sure nobody gets seriously hurt.
|>>|| No. 13540
Is there actual legislation governing this or does it boil down to common sense and case law?
As an aside, I remember a BKB night where the cops basically stood around and said "well we could nick them both but to be honest without anyone pressing charges it wouldn't ever stand up in court". This was a filmed and streamed online event mind you, it's not like there was a lack of available evidence if it was needed.
|>>|| No. 13541
The whim of a jury, basically. There have been a handful of prosecutions for unlicensed bare knuckle boxing matches, but the general public just isn't going to send someone to prison for participating in a well-regulated sporting contest.
|>>|| No. 13543
>Do I need to point out the difference?
Does it even matter? The point is simply how society's values have changed. Couple of hundred years back and we'd all have been marrying teenagers.
There are places in America where they still think homosexuals can be "rehabilitated" and "cured". Likewise there are parts of the undeveloped world where kiddyfiddling is still very much the norm. As someone pointed out in the other thread, it would be racist to assume our values are superior to theirs.
|>>|| No. 13544
>would be racist to assume our values are superior to theirs.
Utterly racist to demand that middle-aged Arab men must not be allowed to marry and fuck twelve year olds. You have that right.
On the whole age of consent thing though, please let's not start that old chestnut again. Surefire way to get perma banned on .gs if you don't happen to make yourself clear enough. Also, paedos have a sixth sense for that, they can smell any online debate of age of consent from many servers away, and then before you know it you will begin to think you are the cunt for saying they shouldn't get to fuck fourteen year olds.
|>>|| No. 13545
Yeah as you know, we get that shit here too - usually in /lab/ with some scientific justification. Once you grant that lot license to talk about it....
|>>|| No. 13546
Not any of them, but where does one draw the line if you start deciding that certain topics are not acceptable? Once you make that sort of decision, you set a precedent, as anyone who remembers the vicious campaign of harassment over filtering child porn will know.
|>>|| No. 13547
At the point where letting it go any further would lead to people doing illegal things if left unchecked. You know, where it is.
|>>|| No. 13548
>At the point where letting it go any further would lead to people doing illegal things if left unchecked
You mean like the book thread on the front page of /*/ right now? (To draw the actual parallel I was referring to.)
No, we don't. Please elaborate.
|>>|| No. 13549
Try and explain to your "peers" (a jury) why linking to some children's books is the same as distributing child pornography, then you tell us how you get on. I'll meet you at A&E.
|>>|| No. 13551
If Fox v. BT is anything to go by, the A&E visit will be because someone got pissed up on champers and fell on the kerb.
|>>|| No. 13553
Sorry, I didn't realise we were living in 1930s Alabama where daring to suggest it might be racist to presuppose the superiority of white European cultural values is somehow going to get anyone lynched.
|>>|| No. 13559
It's just risky for somebody who is operating a web site or forum where some people continuously flirt with the outer boundaries of what is legal.
For example, before all the copyright reforms of the early noughties, you had people posting all kinds of info and tutorials on web forums about how to circumvent DVD copyright protection, using DeCSS-Plus and other software tools. When the laws were then tightened considerably, web forums started posting new rules as sticky forum topics advising users to stop talking about that kind of thing.
Anyway, what I am saying is, you can get in hot water quickly if you provide information on a web forum (or image board), or allow your posters to provide it, on how to break the law. In the case of copyright infringements, you might be let off with a takedown notice. But if you allow paedos to chat freely in a forum thread, that can open a whole different can of worms for you.
|>>|| No. 13560
The only topic we actively filter are the paedos. You only have to observe the regular occasional posting in /lab/ where some dimwit seems to keep trying to make a scientific argument for it, to observe the problem - those posts are a marker, to see if we'll allow that kind of discussion, and see if there are like minded individuals here. In a way, they're trying to shift the Overton Window on the site and see if we tolerate it.
Exactly right. There are plenty of .onions they can find that shit, I'm not paying for it.
|>>|| No. 13564
>where some dimwit seems to keep trying to make a scientific argument for it
oh yes, the sciencelad paedos. They would have you believe that girls being full breasted at 14 is Mother Nature's way of telling you they are ready for sex with a middle-aged git who is possibly also a manospherelad and thinks it's all aging fishperson womens' fault for keeping the age of consent "unrealistically" high.
The real science is that your taste in sexual partners usually progresses more or less with your own age and your sexual experience. At some point, you will look back and find 20-year-olds definitely still sexually arousing to look at, but you will wonder what they could really offer you in bed besides firm tits and a tight minge. One school of thought is that some paedos have somehow missed sexual developmental stages and are stuck on the level of priapic 14-year-olds. Or on the level of whatever age they feel attracted to. They never progressed to an interest in sexually mature (young) women, possibly because of inner sexual repression. More grim explanations even imply that some of them have unhealthy attachments to their mothers.
But you never hear any of that from sciencepaedolad.
|>>|| No. 13569
>The real science is that your taste in sexual partners usually progresses more or less with your own age and your sexual experience
Dunno if it's true or not, but there's a widely passed around chart showing that women prefer men within a band of their own age while men tend to hold their interest somewhere around 18-20 throughout their life
Can't remember what exactly it purported to measure though (in particular whether it was just ranking appearance, or whether there was an element of sexual attraction to it - getting into the question of "what could they really offer you in bed?")
|>>|| No. 13570
>At some point, you will look back and find 20-year-olds definitely still sexually arousing to look at
20-year olds aren't the problem though lad. I agree with everything you say though, you are spot-on, but I remember clearly getting to that age of 30ish and things changing - before that, most women looked older and more mature than me regardless of age. Around then, suddenly the underage pretenders stick out like a sore mile - you can see they're girls and not women. You get to a point in male maturity in your thirties where you are suddenly not fooled anymore and the younger womens physical and emotional immaturity is obvious and you just don't fancy them. MILFs all the way. Unless you're a paedo obviously.
|>>|| No. 13575
What this statistic doesn't make clear enough is that women really struggle to find either a romantic or a sexual partner from a certain age onward. Women experience sort of a reversal of fortunes from the time they're in their early 20s to about when they approach their late 30s. If you're not a complete munter at age 20, you can have all the dick you'll ever want. And lads of all ages will be queueing up around the block for you. But my best mate's older sister is 38 and divorced, and she says men in her age group, if they are single at all, want the 28-year-olds, and the only men on dating sites who have expressed genuine interest in her are well in their 50s.
On the other hand, actually attracting 28-year-olds becomes harder for men as well with every year that passes. You can delude yourself all you want; the vast majority of those young women will find the idea of shagging a man 20 years her senior outright repulsive.
|>>|| No. 13576
>On the other hand, actually attracting 28-year-olds becomes harder for men as well with every year that passes. You can delude yourself all you want; the vast majority of those young women will find the idea of shagging a man 20 years her senior outright repulsive.
Age is cruel to us all, but most men badly let themselves go once they're past 30. You can knock the best part of a decade off if you just look after yourself - a decent grooming routine, properly tailored clothes, a fair amount of effort in the gym and a good psychologist. As a man, you have the advantage of traditional gender roles; a lot of young women (and twinks) really like being looked after by an older, wiser and wealthier man.
Most men could do quite well for themselves well into their forties if they looked after themselves. Most straight men don't, because they're utterly deluded about what they have to offer.
|>>|| No. 13577
> Women experience sort of a reversal of fortunes from the time they're in their early 20s to about when they approach their late 30s.
I'd argue that 23-27 is basically vintage age for lasses. Under 23 and you're looking at someone who's likely never paid a bill, never cooked a real meal, never worked a washing machine and by extension has no real clue what real life is really all about. I'm not saying that I expect lasses to fulfill those roles for me but I like my women the I am: independent and completely able to look after myself. Trying to explain to some utterly inexplicably self-entitled 19 year old that you won't be seeing her this weekend because you've had something penned in since before you met her is so far beyond tiresome that it hurts my soul just to think about it.
Likewise over about 27 or so and, and I'm sorry for offending any super-giga-feminists around, but the old biological clock starts ticking and they start wanting to settle down and maybe even have kids. If that's not your thing, or if they're not "the one" then this also starts to get a bit tiresome.
> On the other hand, actually attracting 28-year-olds becomes harder for men as well with every year that passes. You can delude yourself all you want; the vast majority of those young women will find the idea of shagging a man 20 years her senior outright repulsive.
Utterly disagree. Once you hit 30 you'll probably never shag another teenager again unless she's looking to tick "older man" off her ill-advised bucket list; most 18-19 year old lasses generally go up to around 25-27 tops but I've known plenty that have gone a lot higher just to have done it. I sort of get it as well, for 21 year old me bedding a 27 year old woman was pretty great.
Once women hit about 21 or so they're generally open to any age up until whenever that man falls utterly apart which generally falls anywhere in his 40s depending on how well he takes care of himself.
|>>|| No. 13578
Christ, how does one 'do' casual sex outside of Tinder? I'm through the looking glass here.
|>>|| No. 13579
Unfortunately I'd find myself having to invert the question because I've never installed tinder in my life.
For me it generally went: go out, meet girl, meet girl's friends, act charming, get invited to social gathering, ramp up the charm, receive phone calls from girls (who apparently got my number via osmosis), metastasise.
Obviously I'm a responsible married man these days and couldn't possibly find myself balls deep in teenage guts on any given night, so this advice may well be out of date.
|>>|| No. 13580
Fair enough, I've not hit thirty yet so I guess there is a generation gap here.
|>>|| No. 13581
> I've not hit thirty yet so I guess there is a generation gap here
Probably not as much as you think, I'd say about 10 years max.
You'll probably find that 30-35 is pretty much prime age for men to attract women in the 20-25 age group. For most men you tick all the boxes for a girl who hasn't quite broken out yet: independent, own place, won't be directly involved in her friendship circle, hasn't gone over the hill yet, can still fuck on demand. Just don't act all Peter Kay dad on a night out and you'll be swimming in fanny, lad.
|>>|| No. 13582
>30-35 is pretty much prime age for men to attract women
Exactly this. Agree with another poster that women are at the height of their powers at 27 - they look awesome, they're clever and experienced in the world and they've probably got some degree of independence that means they'll let you have some too. It goes downhill after that.
My experience of getting to 30 though is that everything turns around - in your early thirties as a male, you're a bit more comfortable in your own skin, established in whatever career you've chosen and have some confidence about life - women of any age pick up on that very quickly.
|>>|| No. 13585
>30-35 is pretty much prime age for men to attract women in the 20-25 age group. For most men you tick all the boxes for a girl who hasn't quite broken out yet: independent, own place, won't be directly involved in her friendship circle, hasn't gone over the hill yet, can still fuck on demand.
It all greatly depends on you having your shit together in your own life. If you are a well adjusted, educated early-30something with a career and a strong likeable personality, then there is actually a fair amount of hope for you to pull women ten years younger than you.
But if you are a fuck up in one way or another, if you are jobless, broke, have no personality and no goals in life and you are getting more out of shape with every day that passes, do yourself a favour and forget about it.
In the end, as an olderlad, you are going to have to give women a valid reason why they should be hanging out with you instead of a younglad who is more towards their own age.
Just being "young at heart" won't cut it. Again, why should a young woman be with an old man who feels young at heart, when she can be with a lad who actually is young.
And all that isn't even considering all the flak you will get as an age gap couple both from your friends and hers, as well as from her parents.
I have simply seen this play out many times. And at some point, as an olderlad you just have to ask yourself, true love notwithstanding, if it's really worth the bother. If you are so desperate to fuck a 22-year-old, why not just go see a prozzie. And do some growing up afterwards.
|>>|| No. 13586
> It all greatly depends on you having your shit together in your own life.
Well that should go without saying. The whole point basically boils down to maturity and money; if you didn't acquire either of those then you're basically a sadder and more wrinkly version of early 20s you.
As one Simon David Williamson once said "In your twenties you can do it on looks, your thirties on personality, but in your forties you need cash or fame. Everyone thinks I'm aspirational, but I'm not. It's a maintenance thing with me, a kind of crisis management".
|>>|| No. 13588
Wealth tends to be more fragile than looks or personality though. If you maintain a bare minimum of personal hygiene, physical exercise and sensible diet, looks, for a guy, are not that easily ruined in your 20s. Even the onset of baldness in your late 20s will not be a true game changer.
Well and personality, I wouldn't say it comes for free in your 30s, it's hard earned both through losses and triumphs. But between looks and money, it tends to be the most enduring asset. The one that's really not that easy to fade or be taken away from you.
Money and wealth, by contrast, are much easier lost than gained. All it takes is a divorce from hell, some bad personal investments or being laid off from your well paying job in your late 40s, and you're fucked.
|>>|| No. 13589
>All it takes is a divorce from hell
If you're talking about attractive qualities for single people then I don't think anyone who's considering you as a partner is going to be worried about you losing your money in a divorce.
|>>|| No. 13595
Probably not, if they really see you for the person that you are.
But we were talking about what pulls young birds during which respective decade of your life. As a divorced penniless 40something, you may find solace with a fellow 40something or late-30something woman who also has to start her life from zero for whatever reason. But losing whatever wealth you had will rob you of one of the key selling points about yourself to those much coveted "pretty young things".
|>>|| No. 13601
>'Life has been terrible without Dinky. My wife and I are worried about him. We come from a nation of animal lovers and we are committed to our pets which are like family. We can only pray and hope we find Dinky.'
>Donna added: 'My father was so distressed about the whole situation that he just had to come back. He has lost weight and is now on medication for hypertension.'
Kind of just that slight bit of an overreaction.
Then again, I remember how it disrupted our family life when I was little and our cat was shot and killed by hunters in the woods adjacent to our street. They then just left our cat to die there, and we later found him while frantically searching the neighbourhood.
Luckily, we were able to find witnesses who saw the hunters in the area that day and knew them personally, and we could argue our case that the hunters, who then confessed, had no way of mistaking a Siamese cat for anything that was legal for them to shoot. At least not from the assumed shooting distance of 100 feet, with scopes on their rifles.
We actually went to court over it, and the hunters were found guilty of a violation of hunting laws as well as animal cruelty, and we were compensated for the replacement value of our Siamese cat. They argued that we shouldn't have let our cat run free in an area that was known to be frequented by hunters, but the judge wasn't having any of it and said it is up to the person who hunts to make sure they don't shoot an animal that isn't legal for them to pursue. And that the risk should not be carried by a pet owner who affords their cat species-adequate living conditions.
You don't really replace a cat though. That's indeed somebody's family member. You wouldn't shoot their uncle in the woods, would you.
|>>|| No. 13602
Congratulations on getting the best result that you could have legally achieved, though.
|>>|| No. 13603
Yeah, it was just sheer luck that somebody had seen the two hunters in the neighbourhood that day. That alone wouldn't have sealed it. But they didn't seem to be that bothered to admit that they shot our cat (which they didn't know belonged to us), because for some inconceivable reason, they thought they were more or less almost within their rights to do so, and that it was our fault for letting our cat go into those woods where people were frequently hunting.
What actually got into their heads when they decided to fire a hunting rifle at a defenceless domestic cat (Siamese or not), they were never able to tell us. I mean, there still had to be some sort of leap between vaguely assuming that cats would be fair game in a hunting area, and actually aiming your weapon at one and then pulling the trigger.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]