Much earlier my friend. If by sexually interested you mean not just intercourse, kids start playing with themselves, being fascinated by genitalia, and playing "sex games" with each other as early as 4 or 5.
Here is an interesting thought, woops, I mean a thought I personally find interesting, for I cannot scientifically prove that the following thought is interesting by nature, it's a subjective manner: Let's say that we have invented a medical way to completely eliminate unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Okey, in this hypothetical situation, can there still be any argument in favor of age of consent laws, let's say, for under 18 people who have reached puberty and choose to engage in sexual activity for the pleasure of it? We are assuming now that there will be no physical harm since STDs/unwanted pregnancies have been eliminated via some new health management technology. Many under-18 Caucasian females fantasize about having a relation with the rap star Eminem: I saw a poll result discussed by Fox News' Bill O'Reilly where he stated that a huge percent of under-18 females want to date Eminem.
this is why we have age of consent laws, to avoid this situation. the age of consent is 18, period. this says nothing of a persons emotional fitness. there is little doubt that some 14 year olds are better equiped emotionally than some 25 year olds, but there must be a line and it has been set by law.
It's a modern religio-political thing. Females for most of human existence have been getting pregnant as soon as they were reproductively functional. There's a reason that young nubile females excite males. It's called "survival of the species". We are all descended from males that took advantage of the earliest opportunity to mate with females thus beating out the slower competition. I don't know anyone who is sexually attracted to a thin, flat chested, no-hips prepubescent rug-rat. But at the first signs of hips, breasts, and curvaceous asses, the lusting phase begins, wether you like it or not. To answer your question, no. No point at all. The fiction that post-pubescent girls are not interested in sexual experimentation (many times with older experienced men - also an evolutionary survival advantage) is directly from the same religious idiocy that prohibits certain foods from being eaten at certain times. Baseless, but currently ingraned in society. In fact, there's no way to even do the social experiment. That would require boys and girls growing up in a non-repressed environment, free to express themselves without punishment. We're all way too damaged for that.
Old article: Wired New Report: http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Oth...c-Law-Help-Internet/PornNotDamagingToKids.htm
I had stated before that modern feminism holds the view that it is morally okey for an under-age male to be the victim of statutory rape/child-molestation, but that it is the worst crime known to man for an underage female to become victims of these same crimes. I will now provide what I see as an extremely conspicuous piece of evidence to support this: Look at the various movie channels offered by Satellite/Dish tv or Cable. They play some old movies from the 1970s and earlier that depict acts of statutory rape/Child molestation against underage males. Now I assume that such movies exist that show these crimes against under-age females, but the movie stations no longer play those movies: that would be just plain "evil." Now, to prove this, last night on the Dish Network channel "TMC-W" from 1 am to 3 am, they played a movie called "Murmur of the Heart" starring Lea Massari, Benoit Ferreux, and Daniel Gelin, made in 1971. In this movie, the main character is a 14 year old male who was 14 years old in real life as well: he had the face and body of an 8th or 9th grader, a real under-age male. During the beginning of the movie, he seeks the service of a prostitute. She was in real life about 35 years old, clearly over the age of 18. In the movie, she asks the minor to strip down. He first stips to his underwear, revealing his penis cleavage. He then takes his underwear off, but they only show his buttucks, not his penis, which is still an act of child pornography. The 35 year old prostitute than takes off her clothes, but they only show her breasts in the movie. She then places her breasts on the innocent child's bare chest: it was completely shown, the breasts pressed up against the male-child's chest. She comments that the child's penis was pretty large for his age and talks dirty about erections and so forth. Then she lies on the bed with her face and chest up. The little male-child then lies on top of her and lays his bare chest on the prostitute;s bare breasts. They then begin to engage in mouth-to-mouth kissing. She tells him to insert his penis into her vigina. He says he has done so, and then he begins to sway back and forth. They did not show the penis and vigina though: it was only described verbally. While the little child was being sexually molested by this evil sexual predator, his underage friends peaked inside to watch, and then jumped on the child as a joke. he jumps up, puts on his clothes, and the scene is pretty much over. Another scene: the innocent male-child is vacationing in a small town with his mother. He is going to take a shower. He stips down completely and the movie exposes his buttucks again for long periods of time. A real-life 50 year old female nanny comes in and hand-bathes him and hoses him off. He is completely nude with his buttucks showing and the nanny is in actuality watching his nude body, and she scrubs his penis, but they did not actually show the penis, just the hand as it moved over his pubic hair, and then the camera did not move any further down. Another scene: the severely sexually molested 14 year old innocent male-child is taking a bath again. His 32 year old mother comes in and starts scrubbing his hair and can see his penis through the water in actuality: he was completely exposed, but they did not actually show the penis too well, just blurry images through the water. The boy and mother start joking around and suddenly the boy jumps out completely naked with buttocks exposed and starts tackling his mother in just fun horse-play. She has complete view of his penis, but the penis was not actually shown. The boy by the way was not playing the roll of a mentally retarded person where in such a case minors must often be hand-washed because they are mental vegitables. The boy was normal, healthy, smart, and horny. Another scene: apparently the writer of the movie was a fan of Freud: the mother and her innocent male-child go to dinner. The mother drinks a lot and becomes drunk. She comes home drunk. The 14 year old male-child helps her onto the bed and then strips her down to braw and underwear. After she is half-asleep, the 14 year old child-son removes her bra and starts kissing her breasts: the camera shows the child's mouth moving up and down her exposed breasts. The mother then joins in and starts kissing the son on the mouth and making orgasmic sounds. The scene ends. The next day the mother says that even though they should never engage in sex again, last night should be remembered as a wonderful, loving, and beautiful night. End of movie. Now, just imagine if instead of a real 14 year old boy, it was a real 14 year old girl in the above movie getting the services of a 35 year old male prostitute, being bathed by a 50 year old "dirty old man," and then having sex with her 33 year old father. The movie channels would never air such a movie and instead denounce as Child Pornography and have all the adult males involved in the production of the movie arrested. Now, this movie is not the only example: another movie aired a month ago by one of these national movie channels involved a 15 year old male having a sexual relation with a 22 year old female: the boy was 15 in real life, and played a 15 year old in the movie as well: they physically depicted the woman placing her bare breasts on the naked backside of the innocent boys back, then they got into the bathtub together and started engaging in mouth-to-mouth kissing. She placed her hands on his penis and started to masturbate him, though again the penis was not showed. Then all throughout the rest of the movie they engaged in mouth-to-mouth kissing. And then we have the recent movie with Nichole Kidman in which a 8 year old male-child was the reincarnation of her dead husband. Nichole gave a mouth-to-mouth kiss to the 8 year old boy. And in one scene she was completely naked in the bathtub with a very fuzzy view of her breasts due to the suds. The 8 year old boy walks in completely naked and gets into the tub with her and he has a direct actual view of her fuzzy breasts due to the suds. They did not expose the boy's bare private parts though, but they did snow him strip down to his underwear with the cleavage of his penis showing. The goal of the boy was to engage in sexual intercourse with Nicole Kidman, but the scene just ended there. Many Republicans actually caught on to this double standard with Nicole Kidman, and on various internet forums they complained about how if it were instead an adult male and a child-female, it would be denounced as child-pornography. I have yet to see any movies aired involving a minor female with an adult male where actual child-pornography is displayed.
I think its a shame that they don't show ding-dongs in American movies. Hence my partiality for European cinema.
or pussies as well. But in actuality, those late night adult American movie channels often show penises, but almost never a good clear view of vaginas. One recent movie had a male pornstar walking around for the whole length of the movie completely naked with his penis completely viewable from every angle and close up. The penis fluctuated from erect status to lymph. But the female pornstar that he was having sex with, they never showed her vagina, just a slight view of her upper pubes and rare glimpses of her breasts. Again, the belief is that a male is socially inferior to the female, so it is okey for him to be "degraded" but not so much a female. Of course, feelings of "degradation" are subjective: my feelings are that there is nothing degrading about exposed genitals.
It depends what kind of American movies you're watching - although I gather that, even here, the Europeans have a tendency to go one better. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Those dirty Germans. No sense of decorum.
Society needs to pick a global age of consent once and for all. It's like a maze, the age is different in every country, every state, it's ridiculously complicated. To be safe, just avoid dating all females under 18, it reduces your risk of illegality to 0%, at least in the age restriction category.
Just make it 21 like the drinking age. Or wait, maybe 16, like the driving age. Or no, base it on the whether the girl is menstruating or not. No, wait. I know. Make a state approved mental maturity test. Above a certain score, and you can fuck and be fucked. Or how about we base it on breast size. If you're small and older, too bad. No sex for you. But if you're young and buxom, have fun! So many possibilities. Or how about the government keep its fucking nose completely out of something like the personal sexuality of human beings?
There are some legit reasons why there should be an age of consent. The problem is the inconsistency. The fact that the age changes due to your location on a map, is enough to make it complicated enough that it's like walking through landmines blindfolded. The age of consent, should exist to protect minors from exploitation, this is the purpose. And I definately agree, that there is a definate too young age, I think we can universally agree that 16 and under is too young, it's easy to understand why. A girl below a certain age point is a girl, not a young woman, not fully developed, but a girl both mentally and physically. In these cases you can just look at them, and if you arent a pedophile, you'll come to the conclusion that they are too young. However, when they get older, and are 17 or so, then they are in their physical prime, and look like women, it's not going to be so easy anymore to universally agree that they are so young. This is why the age of consent usually ranges anywhere from 16 and up, to 17 and up, but almost everyone agrees anything below 16 is too young. Even if the law says 16 and up, you are taking a risk. First you need documented consent, this means you need evidence that she or he gave consent. Second you need to be authorized by the parents. If you have all this even then it's a risk. So it's really simple, if you don't want to fall for the consent trap, it's simple, don't date anyone under 18, in fact, why date anyone under 21? Usually at these ages they arent mature anyway, so unless you are under 21 yourself, what do you have to gain? It's very much like drinking and driving, or drinking with your date, it's a bad idea to get intoxicated with a female, it's a bad idea to date an under 18. Just by slipping up once, you open yourself up to a wide range of possible legal attacks, even if you have good intentions, it's a risk. So you see, it's best to minimize your risks at any cost, even if you must hurt peoples feelings.
Agreed. Definitely. From whom? Toy companies? Junk food companies? Clothing and cosmetic companies? You see my point? Absolutely. Nope. Not at all. I think you'll get many disagreements here. Oh? Yes, and...? Ok... Nope. Not true. Yes. It's assinine. Good sex with the most nubile of creatures? An uncomplicated simple sexual relationship (maybe)? Any of a thousand reasons that are no business but the two people involved? Agreed. I think your analysis of the "correct" age is highly dubious.
I think age of consent also depends on both parties. e.g. two fifteen year olds are fine but (ahem!) a forty year old lusting after a fifteen year old is plain skanky.
skanky it may be, but every man you see or will ever know, does from time-to-time, provided he's normal and the girl is attractive. Your future husband does, whoever he may be (??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). Get used to it.
A question. If presented with pictures of a slim female with a nice ass, medium sized breasts, and a pretty face, will a male of any given age lust after her? Answer, yes, publicly. When the females age is revealed to be less than the culturally accepted age, will he still lust after her? Answer: Yes. Privately.
