Yoga Pants - Appropriate?

Gathomas88 · Feb 17, 2014

Superfly said:
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Isn't that what I just said?

Superfly · Feb 17, 2014

Gathomas88 said:
Isn't that what I just said?

I wasn't talking you specifically, I was talking you collectively, as in all the guys in this thread who seem to be OK with this type of behavior.

ChrisL · Feb 17, 2014

Gathomas88 said:
If the other alternative available is to simply have children without being married, marriage would actually probably be preferable.

That is not the only other alternative.

Again, they're not "children." They're sexually mature young women.

While you can blame men for bad behavior, you really cannot blame them for perceiving sexually attractive women for what they are.

No, 16-year-old girls are NOT women. They are still kids.

I still think that you might be confusing the chicken and the egg here. Most normal people aren't getting married as teenagers.

If they are, they probably have a pretty awful life to begin with.

Then it isn't a big deal to change age of consent.

To be fair here, unwed single mothers are at a greater risk for abuse.

Marriage: Still the Safest Place For Women and Children

I find this to be questionable to say the least. If a woman is truly "single" then who is "beating" her? This is from the super biased Heritage Foundation too. This is contrary to the unbiased, in-depth and detailed study that I provided, which was peer reviewed and gave detailed explanations on how data was obtained and how it is applied to the subject matter at hand.

Even divorced women are apparently less of a risk than those who have never been married.

According to the Heritage Foundation? Interesting and not at all surprising. Lol!

Well, yea. That's kind of exactly the point though.

It's everything else that affects the safety of teenage girls, not arbitrary (and difficult to enforce) laws telling every one "hands off until she's 18."

What? This doesn't even make sense.

Again, that's really not what the statistics show.

Pushing Age of Consent back from 16 to 18 (or even 14 to 18) doesn't seem to have any appreciable impact on "deterrence" whatsoever. We actually score worse with regards to virtually all problems linked with teenage sexuality even in spite of having a higher age of consent.

Again, you are wrong, and the study I posted proves it.

There's clearly more to this than law alone.

The law is certainly a deterrent. Why would you deny that? The studies I posted clearly demonstrate that.

Ehhh... Let's be honest here. Some of the more "liberated" progressive posters on this board do seem to encourage exactly that. :lol:

I'm sorry, but I've never heard of any poster here stating that they encourage irresponsible behavior in their children.

The dangerous minority who will not still exist. Women ignore their presence at their own peril.

I don't see why you would think anyone is ignoring anything.

Which is exactly why they need to be educated otherwise. :lol:

Let me ask you something? Did you do EVERYTHING your parents told you to do? Your expectations of children are a little much. Not to mention, there are children who do not have good role models or people to talk to them in their lives.

Women need to be wary of strange men. We're not all nice, you know. lol

And who says that we aren't? Children, however, are more vulnerable than adult women.

True, but there's really not any evidence to suggest that our current age of consent laws actually do anything to protect these kinds of girls.

According to the link I posted, there is plenty of evidence to suggest just that.

If someone is Hell bent on seeking out the wrong kind of attention, they are going to find a way to make it happen either way regardless.

That is irrelevant when it comes to adults taking advantage of children.

Fair enough. That is not what you said earlier though. lol

But I did state that numerous times throughout this conversation. In fact, I stated that you can admire beauty and not want to "do" it. That is true. You are probably just still in your hormonal state, and you are just barely out of your teen years if you want to be technical. I don't know how you can attest to the feelings of a 40-year-old man. It's simple really, you cannot. You can only speak for yourself.

Honestly, I think you give 18 year olds too much credit, and 16 year olds too little.

We have to have an age as it is not feasible to test everyone's maturity levels, and no such tests exist, and if they did, they would not be valid. We have to go with the general consensus and that is that most 16-year-old girls are immature, not very responsible and don't make very good decisions, hence the fact that they still rely on parental control and guidance and hence the fact that they would not be very successful people at living on their own without any outside help. This should be Captain Obvious stuff here. It is just common sense.

It's not like young girls in either age group are rushing out to have sex with men twice their age in any eventuality.

So?

It's true. :shrug:

It doesn't matter whether that's what you actually support or not. It is what the law results in.

This is absolutely untrue. Most states have Romeo/Juliet amendments to their laws.

Most of the people it affects are not lecherous pervs decades older than their prey, but simple young adults who happen to be a couple of years older than the people they're involved with.

Again, this is not true. It is pretty rare where a teenager gets put on a sex registration list for having sex with another teenager. It does happen, yes, but it is not the norm. Go look at the sex offender registry list for yourself in your state. You will see how WRONG you are.

The Age of Consent in South Carolina (and even Superfly's state, Georgia, ironically enough) is 16.

If I wanted to run out and have sex with a 16 year old, I could. Trust me. :lol:

This is why the law needs to be changed.

I do not, because it's not something I'm interested in. I'd feel a little weird even being with an 18 year old, as a matter of fact.

I think it has something to do with having younger sisters. :shrug:

AHA! You have little sisters. How would you feel if your little sister was having sex with a 30 or 40-year-old man? A man older than your father perhaps? Is that okay? And why or why not?

That being said, however; I simply find it annoying when people get overly "high and mighty" on this particular issue. 18 really isn't an age that should necessarily be "set in stone," IMO, especially if it's only going to become an excuse to slap kids with trumped up charges that are going to follow them around for the rest of their lives.

As many of us have exhaustively repeated, no one wants teens to be prosecuted for being with other teens, yet you keep persisting with this.

I also find it amusing that, if many of the more absolutist posters in this thread had their way, I probably wouldn't even exist. They would've had my grandfather thrown in jail for dating a 15 year old when he was in his early 20s.

Please see above, and also, times have changed a LOT since then.

Nevermind the 50 year marriage or 7 children their relationship resulted in! Dating anyone under the age of 18 is just wrong!!!! Grrr!!

As far as I can tell, it's just a lot of overly exaggerated silliness over nothing. The rest of the world already knows this, but we Americans insist on making a mountain out of a mole hill for the Hell of it anyway regardless.

No we are NOT. I KNOW personally the effects, so don't you try to tell me.

ChrisL · Feb 17, 2014

Gathomas88 said:
If the other alternative available is to simply have children without being married, marriage would actually probably be preferable. . . . . .

You HAVE to stop with these super long posts. Not only did I time out trying to respond, but between the two of us there were too many characters. PLEASE STOP THAT. Thank you in advance. :mrgreen:

Gathomas88 · Feb 17, 2014

ChrisL said:
You HAVE to stop with these super long posts. Not only did I time out trying to respond, but between the two of us there were too many characters. PLEASE STOP THAT. Thank you in advance. :mrgreen:

But this next one is going to be suuuuper long though! :lol:

Eh. Fine. I'll try to trim some of the more repetitive elements out. :2razz:

ChrisL · Feb 17, 2014

Gathomas88 said:
But this next one is going to be suuuuper long though! :lol:

Eh. Fine. I'll try to trim some of the more repetitive elements out. :2razz:

I would appreciate that . . . truly! :lol:

ChrisL · Feb 18, 2014

I think I'm done talking about "yoga pants" for tonight.

ChrisL · Feb 18, 2014

ChrisL said:
You HAVE to stop with these super long posts. Not only did I time out trying to respond, but between the two of us there were too many characters. PLEASE STOP THAT. Thank you in advance. :mrgreen:

Gathomas88 said:
But this next one is going to be suuuuper long though! :lol:

Eh. Fine. I'll try to trim some of the more repetitive elements out. :2razz:

Hey, did you see that I inadvertently made a joke? :2razz:

Gathomas88 · Feb 18, 2014

ChrisL said:
If a woman is truly "single" then who is "beating" her?

Boyfriends, I would assume.

Most women aren't exactly celibate even if they aren't married. :shrug:

This is from the super biased Heritage Foundation too.

Not quite.

Marriage: Still the Safest Place For Women and Children

Analysis of ten years worth of findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has conducted since 1973, demonstrates that mothers who are or ever have been married are far less likely to suffer from violent crime than are mothers who never marry

Their source for this data was actually the US Department of Justice.

What? This doesn't even make sense.

Again, you are wrong, and the study I posted proves it.

Not really. All it proves is that teenage pregnancy tends to be bad for a person's long term prospects when they're broke and uneducated.

I never denied that because it's common sense.

However, what you have not demonstrated is that having the AoC being set at 18 makes teenage pregnancy any less likely in the first place. To the contrary, nations with ages of consent set several years lower than our own actually have significantly less of a problem with teenage pregnancy than the United States.

This would seem to indicate that there are really no benefits to having AoC set at 18 rather than 16, or even 14.

The law is certainly a deterrent. Why would you deny that? The studies I posted clearly demonstrate that.

Then explain why Europe's doing so much better than we are even with AoC's set as low as 13 in some countries.

I'm sorry, but I've never heard of any poster here stating that they encourage irresponsible behavior in their children.

They don't consider "slutty" attire to be irresponsible. :shrug:

According to the link I posted, there is plenty of evidence to suggest just that.

The fact that we have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world and the highest average AoC alike would seem to indicate otherwise.

We have to go with the general consensus and that is that most 16-year-old girls are immature, not very responsible and don't make very good decisions, hence the fact that they still rely on parental control and guidance and hence the fact that they would not be very successful people at living on their own without any outside help. This should be Captain Obvious stuff here. It is just common sense.

We are apparently just about the only country out there that thinks so, and it isn't even really working out for us.

That should tell you something. :shrug:

What you're trying to tout as being some kind of "natural law" here is really anything but.

This is absolutely untrue. Most states have Romeo/Juliet amendments to their laws.

Which are still patently ridiculous by and large, as they only apply to sex between minors under the age of 18 anyway (Why would that even need to be prosecuted in the first place?), and still result in prison sentences in many cases.

It's a pretty damn silly solution to a problem that only exists because we insist on being so damn anal retentive about our laws in the first place. Most of the rest of the world has no need for such things, and gets on just fine as such.

Again, this is not true. It is pretty rare where a teenager gets put on a sex registration list for having sex with another teenager. It does happen, yes, but it is not the norm. Go look at the sex offender registry list for yourself in your state. You will see how WRONG you are.

It's not rare at all. There are hundreds of people on the sex offender registry for statutory rape charges alone. Most of them weren't much older than their teens at the time themselves.

This is why the law needs to be changed.

Again, you haven't demonstrated any way in which setting the law to 18 can even be said to objectively benefit anyone. You simply seem to want the age raised for the sake of raising it based on ideological faith alone.

AHA! You have little sisters. How would you feel if your little sister was having sex with a 30 or 40-year-old man? A man older than your father perhaps? Is that okay? And why or why not?

It'd be vaguely creepy, and I probably wouldn't approve. However, if the relationship was consensual, and they seemed happy, I wouldn't see myself as having any grounds to try and stop them.

As many of us have exhaustively repeated, no one wants teens to be prosecuted for being with other teens, yet you keep persisting with this.

Superfly and Gina have both stated that any man who dates a girl younger than 18 should be prosecuted in this thread.

times have changed a LOT since then.

Why? We're the same human beings we've always been.

If it wasn't "wrong" on any kind of objective basis back then, it shouldn't be "wrong" now either.

Again, my whole point here is that things are not as absolute as you are making them out to be. Mixed age relationships are a case by case affair.

No we are NOT. I KNOW personally the effects, so don't you try to tell me.

Frankly, your own story is just more evidence for why having AoC set at 18 is pointless in the first place.

Having an arbitrary "line in the sand" around age 18 certainly didn't do anything to prevent you from winding up pregnant.

Just sayin'...

ChrisL · Feb 18, 2014

ChrisL said:
You HAVE to stop with these super long posts. Not only did I time out trying to respond, but between the two of us there were too many characters. PLEASE STOP THAT. Thank you in advance.

Gathomas88 said:
Boyfriends, I would assume.

Most women aren't exactly celibate even if they aren't married. :shrug:

Not quite.

Marriage: Still the Safest Place For Women and Children

Their source for this data was actually the US Department of Justice.

Not really. All it proves is that teenage pregnancy tends to be bad for a person's long term prospects when they're broke and uneducated.

I never denied that because it's common sense.

However, what you have not demonstrated is that having the AoC being set at 18 makes teenage pregnancy any less likely in the first place. To the contrary, nations with ages of consent set several years lower than our own actually have significantly less of a problem with teenage pregnancy than the United States.

This would seem to indicate that there are really no benefits to having AoC set at 18 rather than 16, or even 14.

Then explain why Europe's doing so much better than we are even with AoC's set as low as 13 in some countries.

They don't consider "slutty" attire to be irresponsible. :shrug:

The fact that we have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the industrialized world and the highest average AoC alike would seem to indicate otherwise.

We are apparently just about the only country out there that thinks so, and it isn't even really working out for us.

That should tell you something. :shrug:

What you're trying to tout as being some kind of "natural law" here is really anything but.

Which are still patently ridiculous by and large, as they only apply to sex between minors under the age of 18 anyway (Why would that even need to be prosecuted in the first place?), and still result in prison sentences in many cases.

It's a pretty damn silly solution to a problem that only exists because we insist on being so damn anal retentive about our laws in the first place. Most of the rest of the world has no need for such things, and gets on just fine as such.

It's not rare at all. There are hundreds of people on the sex offender registry for statutory rape charges alone. Most of them weren't much older than their teens at the time themselves.

Is this an almost religious conviction for you, or what? :roll:

Again, you haven't demonstrated any way in which setting the law to 18 can even be said to objectively benefit anyone. You simply seem to want the age raised for the sake of raising it.

It'd be vaguely creepy, and I probably wouldn't approve. However, if the relationship was consensual, and they seemed happy, I wouldn't see myself as having any grounds to try and stop them.

Superfly and Gina have both stated that any man who dates a girl younger than 18 should be prosecuted in this thread.

Why? We're the same human beings we've always been.

If it wasn't "wrong" on any kind of objective basis back then, it shouldn't be "wrong" now either.

Again, my whole point here is that things are not as absolute as you are making them out to be. Mixed age relationships are a case by case affair.

Frankly, your own story is just more evidence for why having AoC set at 18 is pointless in the first place.

Having an arbitrary "line in the sand" around age 18 certainly didn't do anything to prevent you from winding up pregnant.

Blah! Still too long, and I already told you I'm done talking about yoga pants for tonight!

Gathomas88 · Feb 18, 2014

ChrisL said:
Hey, did you see that I inadvertently made a joke? :2razz:

Characters, huh? :2razz:

ChrisL said:
Blah! Still too long, and I already told you I'm done talking about yoga pants for tonight!

Yea... I tried to shorten that last one up a bit.

I'm not really sure I succeeded though. :lol:

ChrisL · Feb 18, 2014

Gathomas88 said:
Characters, huh? :2razz:

Yea... I tried to shorten that last one up a bit.

I'm not really sure I succeeded though. :lol:

I've seen that picture before. Hilarious! :lamo

Gathomas88 · Feb 18, 2014

Gina said:
Nope, not biting. This is a dodge and nothing but an excuse. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. Period. Not once have you acknowledged that.

How on earth is it a "dodge?"

Do you deny that women play a role in keeping themselves out of harm's way?

I don't know what AoC laws have to do with teen pregnancy rates. I don't see the link there, but, and I'm not sure you want to go down this road, one reason teen pregnancy rates are lower in Europe (from your own link)

So the AoC can hardly be said to have much of an influence on teen birth rates when the teens in those other countries use birth control at a higher rate than those in the U.S.

Which is exactly the point. AoC does basically nothing to keep girls out of trouble.

After the mid teens, it is completely arbitrary.

A young man, should be, and in Oregon they are, taught not to have sex with girls that are too young. The only guys I read about here, ruining their lives, are predators. Again, self-control and responsibility. As the text you quoted said: If the girl is over 16, then a guy up to 19 is fine. Why does a 20 year old or older man need to be dating a 16-year-old girl? Be a man and don't get involved.

Again, why? Because you say so?

Those kinds of relationships have been perfectly acceptable for the entirety of human history, and are still acceptable in many other parts of the world (yes, even the developed variety) today as well.

Why is it "wrong" all of the sudden? On what objective basis?

My grandparents did it, and they wound up being married for fifty years and having seven children together.

The simple fact of the matter is that what you are describing here is a completely arbitrary cultural conviction. It really can't be said to "benefit" young women any more or less than setting the age of consent to a younger age like 16 (which states like South Carolina actually do, incidentally).

As I've already pointed out, Europe has age of consent laws that generally range from 13 to 16. In spite of this, young European women run into no more problems than their American counter-parts, by and large.

You want to make girls responsible for the clothing they wear but not young men for their choice to having sex with age inappropriate girls. Why is that? I think it's much more serious and useful to teach young men to avoid having sex with "jail bait". Again, males get a pass on personal responsibility. Romeo and Juliet laws protect really young men in any case.

Can they not both be responsible?

Nope. That does not have anything to do with what you said:

Which would leave those who are not brought up right (by your standards), to the wolves. Those are the kids who are most at risk of being manipulated into sex by adults.

Yes, the law stating that 18 should necessarily have to be the standard. I wasn't suggesting that AoC should be done away with completely.

I guess I should have clarified.

In any case, however; our current AoC arrangement is completely ineffective at dealing with "problem" children anyway. As you said yourself, if a person is Hell bent on seeking out an inappropriate relationship (and keep in mind, sometimes it is actually the girl who initiates contact), there's not much that can be done to stop them.

Commie · Feb 18, 2014

ChrisL said:
What a great point. That makes SO much sense. I agree. I think it is quite confusing to be a teenage girl and to be constantly barraged with conflicting messages.

Yes, it's got to be tough to be young and to be told to look like the models in ads seen 400 times per day, and then be subjected to slut-shaming for trying to look like them.

:lol: I think some men don't realize this, and they will just stare and leer, not even realizing how creepy they look.

Oh, I think they do realize it. If a guy doesn't want to get caught looking, he's going to look away as quick as possible, and pretend he's looking at something else.

I also have no daughters, but I WAS a daughter, so I do understand somewhat at least. I'm SURE I was a handful for my parents.

Yes, you were probably young and fearless, and they were worried about everything that happens and has happened to some other teenage girl in the news.

Oh, if you're talking about Gathomas, he is actually a very nice person. We certainly don't agree on a lot of issues, and I agree that he has some extreme views, but he's always been nothing but kind towards me. Actually, I'm the one who gets heated towards him, and I'm surprised he hasn't blocked ME yet. :lol:

Well, that's your choice who you want to spend time talking to. My problem wasn't extreme opinions, it was changing stories and shifting belief claims around, so that I start suspecting he's just playing games, rather than trying to debate or discuss anything. I have a limited amount of time online, I don't want to waste it on someone who's just going to toy with me.

Commie · Feb 18, 2014

Gina said:
Yep. I'm through the looking-glass, down the rabbit hole, choose an analogy. It's just weird how personal responsibility ends at what a minor wears.

It's a hallmark of rape culture, from what I've heard...victim blaming...it's not his fault....she provoked him by the way she was dressed etc.. Guys were getting off on rape charges back in the old days (when charges were laid) with those kind of lame excuses, but way back in my youth, we were supposed to be transitioning from that attitude to one where no excuses were acceptable. And that was happening at a time when we were getting used to seeing girls in short miniskirts at school. I really don't get where some of these comments about boys being distracted are coming from. We were able to keep from getting too distracted in school, and I expected my boys to be responsible when they were going to high school as well.

Commie · Feb 18, 2014

ChrisL said:
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I think it's the rare girl who would show up at school wearing "booty shorts" or "booty pants" simply because it really wouldn't be that acceptable to other peers in school either. I think most girls (especially those of high school age) DO practice some kind of common sense when it comes to how they are dressed.

Quite frankly, and not to be mean, but most people in general wouldn't be able to get away with wearing those super tight booty pants anyways because they would NOT be looking very good. I think most girls and women realize what clothing they can get away with wearing. Unfortunately, a lot of our people in our country are at least a little bit overweight.

I think you're right on that one! Peer pressure, if nothing else, is going to put a limit on how far anyone can go. The parents of my generation thought we'd all be running around naked in a few years. They just assumed that, because the trend through the 60's and into the 70's was less clothing, that it would just keep going to completely naked....at least that was my mother's nightmares. But, I remember back in the mid-70's, when thong bikinis finally arrived after many summers down in Brazil, the public clamor from dogooders to have the banned from public beaches, was all for nothing. Through the years, I have hardly ever seen any women on the beach wearing a thong...as much as I would have liked to a few times...it was likely beaten back by peer pressure, and never really caught on up here.

Commie · Feb 18, 2014

Superfly said:
I was thinking something very similar, Gina, before I even got to your post. I was reading some of these posts, and my mouth was just dropping open. When the hell did it become OK, or normal, or acceptable, or desirable, to want to have sex with a 16 year old?

Now, that I'm going through these pages, I'm hoping this is just an online trolling thing, and not a growing acceptance of misogyny combined with pedophilia.

Commie · Feb 18, 2014

ChrisL said:
I also sense an almost "sneering" hatefulness from some of the men involved in this thread regarding my posts on this topic and protecting teen girls and stating the obvious, that just because they may be physically mature that in no way means they are mentally or emotionally mature and do need protection because of their vulnerability.

I wonder why this is SO upsetting to some men? I would think that this is just common sense stuff IMO.

It should be common sense.

Superfly · Feb 18, 2014

Commie said:
Now, that I'm going through these pages, I'm hoping this is just an online trolling thing, and not a growing acceptance of misogyny combined with pedophilia.

But all of them, Commie? Most all of the guys in the thread are saying the same thing GaThomas is saying. THAT is what's scary. If it were one guy, I'd be like, "OK, that's peculiar. I'm glad I don't live near this guy." But it's a lot of guys. Scares me more as a mom of teenage girls, because it looks like it's more the rule, and not the exception.

danielpalos · Feb 18, 2014

can we get special dispensation to post relevant, but random pics from the Internet to make points we may have concerning modern textiles technologies and the cute chics that may be wearning them?

cpwill · Feb 18, 2014

Superfly said:
I wasn't talking you specifically, I was talking you collectively, as in all the guys in this thread who seem to be OK with this type of behavior.

Who in this thread has suggested that it is "okay" for significantly older men to attempt to hook up with 16 year old girls? I have seen it argued that it is neither moral or immoral for men to find someone who looks like a beautiful, sexually appealing young woman to be attractive. Heck, my wife thinks Harrison Ford is sexy and he's about as old as the dinosaurs, while she's in her twenties. But I don't think I have seen it argued that that therefore means that 35 year olds should or could morally seek to lecherously attach themselves to teenagers. As near as I can tell, that is an easy strawman.

Superfly · Feb 18, 2014

Doesn't have to be significantly older, cpwill. I don't think a 20 year old should date a 16 year old. A big difference in maturity between a 16 year old and a 20 year old. 4 years isn't a big deal once the people are consenting adults, and on the same maturity level, but teenagers are simply not on the same level as those who are no longer teenagers. They just don't have the same ability to make the right decisions.

Dragonfly · Feb 18, 2014

Superfly said:
When the hell did it become OK, or normal, or acceptable, or desirable, to want to have sex with a 16 year old?

For 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 year old males.... it's pretty much been a normal, acceptable, desire since the dawn of time. :mrgreen:

Gathomas88 · Feb 18, 2014

Commie said:
It's a hallmark of rape culture, from what I've heard...victim blaming...it's not his fault....she provoked him by the way she was dressed etc.. Guys were getting off on rape charges back in the old days (when charges were laid) with those kind of lame excuses, but way back in my youth, we were supposed to be transitioning from that attitude to one where no excuses were acceptable. And that was happening at a time when we were getting used to seeing girls in short miniskirts at school. I really don't get where some of these comments about boys being distracted are coming from. We were able to keep from getting too distracted in school, and I expected my boys to be responsible when they were going to high school as well.

The simple fact of the matter is that this fantasy world you're apparently living in where men behave like chemically castrated eunuchs at all times, and women can expect to run down the street naked and groping themselves without drawing so much as a single leer from male by-standers, doesn't exist, and never will.

It actually seems rather sexist, if you ask me. "Women can't be trusted to behave responsibly or keep themselves out of trouble, so men have to change their behavior to compensate."

Since when did "responsibility" become a purely male affair?

Superfly said:
But all of them, Commie? Most all of the guys in the thread are saying the same thing GaThomas is saying. THAT is what's scary. If it were one guy, I'd be like, "OK, that's peculiar. I'm glad I don't live near this guy." But it's a lot of guys. Scares me more as a mom of teenage girls, because it looks like it's more the rule, and not the exception.

I hate to say it, but you really probably should be scared. It is the "rule" rather than the exception.

The men in this thread simply happen to be honest enough to admit it.

While most men aren't going to act on such things, the attraction can and does exist either way regardless.

Superfly · Feb 18, 2014

Dragonfly said:
For 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 year old males.... it's pretty much been a normal, acceptable, desire since the dawn of time. :mrgreen:

I know this - I'm not talking about boys their own age. :moon: But how is it that I think you know this?

Yoga Pants - Appropriate?

Gathomas88

Superfly

Salty, defiant, and completely non-compliant.

ChrisL

ChrisL

Gathomas88

ChrisL

ChrisL

ChrisL

Gathomas88

ChrisL

Gathomas88

ChrisL

Gathomas88

Commie

Well-known member

Commie

Well-known member

Commie

Well-known member

Commie

Well-known member

Commie

Well-known member

Superfly

Salty, defiant, and completely non-compliant.

danielpalos

cpwill

Superfly

Salty, defiant, and completely non-compliant.

Dragonfly

Gathomas88

Superfly

Salty, defiant, and completely non-compliant.