Home Sex & Relationships
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

younger girls

124

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mist wrote:
    Well, that's you opinion, as you've already said. I'm not quite sure why you are bringing it up again after 3 pages of other shite, but there you go.

    You can expect whatever you like. My view is as it was earlier in this thread that labelling this guy as a paedo is totally out of order.

    However since you and your boyfriend clearly think otherwise and will no doubt be as far beyond convincing otherwise as the planet pluto is from the sun, I'll just bow out of this utterly odd thread right now.

    Maybe because I don't spend my entire life online. Unfortunately I have a life to lead so cannot be expected to respond immediately, although it was fairly obvious that I would do so at some point. After all, it's not every day someone randomly tells you to fuck off when you state common sense. How you can manage to find fault with my statement amazes me, and if I was a slightly more cynical person I would suspect that you decided to pick a fight because of who I am, not what I said.

    I didn't label this guy a paedophile. Go back and read what I said.

    For the more rational people arguing in this thread, I would like to point out that this guy was not being attracted to an individual who happened to be 13. He was finding 13 year olds sexually attractive. 13 year old girls, as a general stage, are not physically mature. They quite often still look like children. Why this is not considered paedophilic in Mist's world I'm not sure.

    I haven't stated that this guy would hurt girls, or be a danger to them. But that's completely irrelevant to the definition of paedophilia.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh for gooooooooooood's sake.

    It's one bitchfest after another.

    You're really not vigilantes. Please make a note of that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whatever.

    If you are somehow suggesting that you meant paedophillic in some literal sense that practically noone in the world other than yourself and your boyfriend would read it as, then of course you are technically correct to say that the behaviour is paedophillic in nature, because it means "someone who is attracted to children".

    However, I think that you and I both know that that wasn't what you were trying to get across, and it certainly wasn't what kermit was suggesting with his "hanging up by the balls" comment. The average reader these days would not see the word paedophile in its strict, dictionary, sense. They would see it in the sense that the media portrays it now, of old, dirty, dangerous men praying on their innocent victims.

    Now, to address your other points :
    After all, it's not every day someone randomly tells you to fuck off when you state common sense. How you can manage to find fault with my statement amazes me, and if I was a slightly more cynical person I would suspect that you decided to pick a fight because of who I am, not what I said.

    Wrong. Firstly I was telling you to fuck off because you called me stupid. I can find fault with your statement because you know nothing about this guy, and how mature he is within himself, or of his interactions with these girls that he apparently is attracted to, yet you are willing to be judge, jury and executioner. Thirdly whilst I would agree that there is no love lost between us I would have said the same to anyone who comes along and randomly says that something I've said is stupid, it's nothing to do with who you are - though the fact that you'd think that it is suggest something about your own level of self-import.
    For the more rational people arguing in this thread

    Although of course there is the possibility that you don't even realise that you are insulting people when you do it. Care to explain why I am meant to be "irrational"?
  • JsTJsT Posts: 18,268 Skive's The Limit
    Mist wrote:

    Wrong. Firstly I was telling you to fuck off because you called me stupid.

    Dont worry, you don't need anyone to call you stupid, you often make yourself look stupid without anyone else saying a word.

    Muppet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JsT wrote:
    Dont worry, you don't need anyone to call you stupid, you often make yourself look stupid without anyone else saying a word.

    Muppet.

    You're not helping. I'm quite enjoying this debate between Mist and GWST, as they both do make good points. But then you have to come in with your childish insults, just to back up your wee buddy :-/
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JsT wrote:
    Dont worry, you don't need anyone to call you stupid, you often make yourself look stupid without anyone else saying a word.

    Muppet.

    Your incredibly well-considered opinion on this matter has been noted.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    C2BK your remark didn't help either, nor did that pink fanny. Nor did anyone bringing pedophillia into anything. But we can't win 'em all.

    Sooo..let it lie, dude.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're not helping. I'm quite enjoying this debate between Mist and GWST, as they both do make good points. But then you have to come in with your childish insults, just to back up your wee buddy :-/

    Glad to oblige :)

    Mist, I wasn't trying to get anything across. Any insinuation you have read is there because you have read it, not because I put it there. As for the rest, I can only reiterate my earlier suggestion of learning how to read. I didn't call you stupid, and I didn't call the guy a paedophile. Hence the irrationality. I should have called you stupid. You're either being wilful or you really are that dumb.

    It is not my responsibility if people wrongly interpret a definition when it is correctly applied.
  • JsTJsT Posts: 18,268 Skive's The Limit
    You're not helping. I'm quite enjoying this debate between Mist and GWST, as they both do make good points. But then you have to come in with your childish insults, just to back up your wee buddy :-/
    I think and speak for myself with my own opinion, not that of 'my buddies'.

    Shame you have to be nasty, I thought you looked thrilling in those pictures you posted, I was about to hop on a plane and propose. Oh Well :(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh, by the way, he's my partner and future husband. Not my boyfriend.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    1983 wrote:
    C2BK your remark didn't help either, nor did that pink fanny. Nor did anyone bringing pedophillia into anything. But we can't win 'em all.

    Sooo..let it lie, dude.

    Probably not (Hey, just like your post), but I figured while JsT was on a role of backing up those who are in his little clique, I thought I'd comment on what I felt was not needed in this thread as I was genuinely interested in Mists' and GWST points.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ...I didn't call you stupid, and I didn't call the guy a paedophile. Hence the irrationality. I should have called you stupid. You're either being wilful or you really are that dumb.

    It is not my responsibility if people wrongly interpret a definition when it is correctly applied.

    Ahh. Is it not?

    Of course, there is something known as implication. The implication of your original statement was that I, as the person who had said the things that you were calling stupid, was stupid. My response was an addressing of that situation. Far be it from me though to credit you with the intelligence to realise that.


    Of course, if you really want to be pedantic about exactly what was said, I didn't explicitly address you when I said that people are quick to judge, but you still saw fit to reply to me, did you not?
    Oh, by the way, he's my partner and future husband. Not my boyfriend.

    Believe me, I'm well aware of that. Of course, technically, he is your boyfriend
    boyfriend

    noun {C}

    a man or boy with whom a person is having a romantic or sexual relationship
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    im a bit late with all this but anyway.

    it was proofed or somethin that jojo is actually 16. she was said to be 13 to get a name for herself.

    on the topic, im 17. it is quite hard for you to distinguish a 13 year old aprt from say a 16 year old. you would say that there is a lot of difference but there isn't really. you can find a lot of 13 year olds who look much older then they are.

    although what this bloke is sayin is quite wrong i feel. he knows they are 13, and says he lusts there bodies or somethin. i mean u can look at a 13 year old and say she is pretty, but any further is very wrong. i kno this is bit extreme but just the thought of them not having grown any pubic hair is enough to put me off.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mist wrote:
    Of course, there is something known as implication. The implication of your original statement was that I, as the person who had said the things that you were calling stupid, was stupid. My response was an addressing of that situation. Far be it from me though to credit you with the intelligence to realise that.

    It is perfectly possible for intelligent people to do stupid things. It's also perfectly possible for stupid people to do stupid things. You can make your own mind up about what I was implying there.

    C2BK - JsT isn't in a clique with me. I'm not sure what you mean.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually...thinking about it...Twizter you have a point. I was passing for 16/17 at 13, no problems. I have a picture of me somewhere...here .

    That was me almost 2 years ago, at 14. I realise it's a bad picture. I don't exactly look "adult", but I don't look 14, and I know it.
  • JsTJsT Posts: 18,268 Skive's The Limit
    Probably not (Hey, just like your post), but I figured while JsT was on a role of backing up those who are in his little clique, I thought I'd comment on what I felt was not needed in this thread as I was genuinely interested in Mists' and GWST points.
    What clique are you on about? I'm not in any 'clique'. whats your fascination with them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    nah u dnt look 13. u look easily 16. if i were to walk past u in the street i would make the assumption that you were 16. but seeing as this kid does know that she is 13 that does kind of make it slightly wrong.

    to be honest i think that if you are 17 and you are lookin for a sexual relationship then going below 16 isn't just illegal but wrong. fair enough if you aren't but from my experience most of us blokes are looking for a shag, and for some going for a younger girl is the easiest way. although that isn't always true!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Twizter wrote:
    nah u dnt look 13. u look easily 16. if i were to walk past u in the street i would make the assumption that you were 16. but seeing as this kid does know that she is 13 that does kind of make it slightly wrong.

    I am 16, and I was 14 when that was taken. Put into the equation that I was almost 6' then (and have reached it now)...well, you get ze picture.

    But yeh...he did say he liked them looking 13. Which does, indeed, make it wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It is perfectly possible for intelligent people to do stupid things. It's also perfectly possible for stupid people to do stupid things. You can make your own mind up about what I was implying there.

    No matter what you were saying or implying there I don't see how saying that I do stupid things is any better than calling me as a person stupid. Not that I actually make the abstraction myself, being as I tend to judge people by their actions and not their latent self.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    JsT wrote:
    What clique are you on about? I'm not in any 'clique'. whats your fascination with them?

    Which would you prefer? Me to refer you as part of their clique or their shadow?
    Awk ya know what, it don't matter. This thread has been ruined now.

    I'd just like to add that from the start I did agree with Mist as I felt it was uncalled for to even bring up the word Pedo into this thread, but GWST, you did make very good points... and without the guy who started this thread, to explain exactly what he meant about being attracted to younger girls; I can't see how this thread could go any further.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yea i realised. well being nearly 6" also helps lol. im not even 6" and im 17 lol.

    i think this thread should be closed now. cos its makin a lot of unneccasry arguments!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can't see how this thread could go any further.

    But why would you want it to go further? Isn't it the done thing to simply go around in circles ad infinitum until Jim V closes the thread?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    cant one of the admins close the thread?!?!
  • JsTJsT Posts: 18,268 Skive's The Limit
    Which would you prefer? Me to refer you as part of their clique or their shadow?
    Awk ya know what, it don't matter. This thread has been ruined now.

    I don't know, i'd just like you to explain what 'cliques' I'm actually in. Muppet.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mist wrote:
    But why would you want it to go further? Isn't it the done thing to simply go around in circles ad infinitum until Jim V closes the thread?

    Cause I was enjoying the little debate that was going on :(
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    look its jus a misunderstanding. forget bout it.

    please end this discussion!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Twizter wrote:
    cant one of the admins close the thread?!?!

    They can. But whether they actually will is another matter. One of them has to be about for that to happen, and they have to consider it closeworthy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ok wel lets just ignore this thread from now on. and hope it goes away lol
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Twizter wrote:
    ok wel lets just ignore this thread from now on. and hope it goes away lol
    We all know it won't...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cause I was enjoying the little debate that was going on :(


    Methinks it has run it's course.
This discussion has been closed.