Well the legal age is 16. I think we also have a moral obligation as men to know what's right and wrong. I'm 34 and I couldn't go with a 19 year old. Still a teenager and I wouldn't be comfortable being in that company, in that way. I'd struggle going more than 10 years younger, tbh. There's no justification at all for thinking it's okay for a 15 year old girl to talk dirty to an old man. Especially when it's for money He's a ****ing wrongun A man should only have sexual fantasies and contact with women. Not young girls.
those girls probably have a better life, and get more pay, than the sweat-shop kids that make your clothes. As to your threats, pff, just another gob-****e keyboard warrior, go cry into your can of Kestrel super.
As I said, I have more of an issue with what gets played on the TV and radio. You lot seem to have a problem with 15 year old, sexually mature, girls talking dirty, but no problem about the TV and music teaching the pre-teens to be wanton sluts.
That's a pretty big assumption to make of me when I haven't passed comment, how do you know I have no problem with that? For the record I do and think it's ridiculous that words such as 'bitch' are censored but then you have songs with the chorus "I'm feeling sexual" which kids will then sing. None of which excuses your comment. Genuinely pretty shocked you see nothing wrong with that. Kind of concerning as well tbh.
@Big Ern No one said they dont care about the media corrupting children, but thats not what is being discussed. You brought that up in a disingenuous way to excuse these dirty ****ers in Japan. Of course you want the blame focused on the media, because it removes all responsibility from the adults doesnt it. Nasty Corporations corrupting our youth and turning 14 year olds into "wanton sluts", so of course its not the guys fault when he sexually molests them, Hannah Montana made them want it.
She certainly contributes to popping them thoughts into little innocent girls heads no doubt. Little fackin tart. It's a shame your world is so black and white Bope..maybe that's why your Missus thinks you are a ****er...you lack the intricate details in life and usually can't see the Woods for the trees it seems.
I never said she didn't, but again, thats not what we are discussing, and I am baffled as to why that keeps being brought up. The defence of, "Perverted old ****s can get kicks from children because....Ariana Grande" isn't gonna ****ing wash with me I am afraid Iggy, or anyone else who has a shred of decency.
Silly bint is as mad as a box frogs. So what are you actually trying to say? Because the original complaint I made was about Old men paying children for sex talk, and sex dolls of 10 year old girls being sold in Japan. Thats pretty indefensible, yet somehow just yourself and Big Ern are championing child sex because.....why again? Because Ariana Grade said the word sex in a song? If you want to have a discussion about over sexualisation in media, especially aimed at children, we can do that, and I agree with you on that matter, as someone with two daughters, it is something I am noticing more and more often, especially in a lot of the media my eldest daughter consumes. I am just not quite sure how it excuses perverted old men in Japan getting sexual kicks out of children. Maybe you need to explain how the two relate and why one justifies the other, because I don't quite understand.
Perhaps I am being naive here, but I have a real problem with statements like that. I can understand where you are coming from, but I completely disagree with what you have said. I am not aiming this specifically at you either. It is something that society does more and more too. We talk about the sexualisation of young children in terms of the clothes they wear and the songs they listen to. I don't believe any of those things sexualise young childen. They are children. They are not aiming to entice anyone into having sex with them with what they wear. They are not expressing a desire to experience sexuality by singing songs. They are copying what people they admire or like wear and sing. The sexualisation of them is done by adults with adult minds. I would imagine that unless they have experiences that they should not have been exposed to, then their minds are still completely innocent. That doesn't mean that I don't think parents should be careful of what they allow their children to wear, or what they see or listen to. Of course they should. We have a responsibility to protect our children, both as parents and as a society. The problem I have with it is that it just sounds too close to victim blaming to me. There is never an excuse to see a child as a sexual object no matter what they are wearing - and to be clear, I am not saying that is what you meant to do or say. However, calling them 'wanton sluts' is just wrong. No matter whether we agree with the choices any parents of a child make or not, those children are not wanton sluts in any meaning of that phrase.
BOOM. Pretty much nailed it. Regardless of what is portrayed in the media, children are not thinking sexually, they know not what they do, it is still the responsibility of the adults to check themselves and act responsibly.
You have the thought process of a *****phile. I sincerely hope that you are never left unsupervised with children. You need help.
Each time one of you wants to have a pop you instantly drop the age so you can yell and cry and whine about a *****phile, yet the original post said the girls were 15, here: So why are you lot mentioning anyone from 11-14? And now you've added sexual molestation to it all when I quite clearly mention 'no physical contact'. So from saying I don't have a problem with old men paying 15 year old girls to talk dirty to them in a cafe in a country where that is legal, you lot are crying that I'm into sexual molestations of 11 - 14 year olds. Some people on here are protesting a bit too much, (Tel and SA83) now one wonders if they protest too much out of their own guilty secrets?
Typical ****tard mentality. Do/say something disgusting , then immediately accuse those who pull you up on it of the very sin you were perpetrating. That may work on ******s mate, but no one else. Your initial comment stated that its fair game if they "have tits and hair". Which can be as early as 12 years old............
And once again you have to drop the age, 3 years this time, in the hope to score a point with your moronic chums who like to threaten people with stabbings over the internet. Did I say I liked it, no. Did I say I'd do it, no. I said I didn't have a problem with sexually mature 15 year olds talking dirty to men in cafe's in Japan. For some reason, best known to yourselves, you lot continue to bring up physical sexual acts with 11-14yr old's. It does seem like some of you are a bit obsessed and fixated upon it, which any decent psychologist, after laughing at your deluded stance on the affects of visual and auditory input on a child's (or adults) brain, would maybe be a little concerned about.
I am not going to pass judgement on your thought processes as I think that is far too easy to do on an internet forum. It is a subject that people understandably feel very strongly about. It is also very easy to post things that can either be taken out of context, or that have been badly worded to express what you really mean. Whatever your thoughts on this matter, I do think that the phrase 'If they have tits and hair then they are sexually mature' leaves you open to causes for concern and perhaps there were better ways to express what you meant.
No you said If they have tits and hair they are sexually mature. Verbatim, that's what you said. And there is no such thing as a sexually mature 15 year old, you sick ****, and they certainly shouldn't be getting paid to talk dirty to old men.
Protesting to much about you saying it's okay for 15 year olds talking dirty to old men? You're trying to justify your warped views. It's not okay for any 15 year old girl to sexually satisfy any older man, in any way. Why can't you get that through your thick, nonce skull? Go and seek help.
