11-28-2011, 02:59 AM
0
But wouldn't that only support my argument that only 16 years old and up is somewhat "acceptable" when it comes to teenagers having their first sexual experience with older adults five years their senior?
since how historically that was the age that they officially became young adults and all that jazz. it also explains why so many 16-17 years old can pretty much pass themselves for college-aged adults.
Any younger than that just seems somehow wrong and gross. espeically with perverted teachers going after students who were only 13 years old or something like that. I don't even think it's okay for older women to go after boys that young.
you call it a rite of passage... I call it a old-fashioned and outdated concept. It goes right out the window along with the idea that "if a girl's old enough to bleed down there, she's old enough to be having sex and be married!"
Especially with how you point out that teenagers are now hitting puberty much earlier. come to think of it, I hit it pretty damn early too... around nine and half years old.
So if people were to stick by old, outdated concepts like rite of passages for boys... then I should had been married off and my virginity despoiled by some dirty old man at the age of nine. just like that Wife of Muhammad's!
So if boys are hitting puberty earlier... then boys young as 9 should be undergoing rites of passages with women who could be much older than their moms. doesn't that thought disturb you at all? That's why I think trying to justify the idea of Boys with older women as a "rite of passage" is stupid. Why not just tell the boys to lay with girls of their own age? They're bound to have more in common, and plus maybe have a relationship longer than a one-night stand (which apparently happens a lot with older women). even if it only lasts for a month or less, as some teenage relationships are bound to go, it's still better because it'll give the boys more pleasant memories of the girl who they had their first time with.
just my personal opinion.
since how historically that was the age that they officially became young adults and all that jazz. it also explains why so many 16-17 years old can pretty much pass themselves for college-aged adults.
Any younger than that just seems somehow wrong and gross. espeically with perverted teachers going after students who were only 13 years old or something like that. I don't even think it's okay for older women to go after boys that young.
you call it a rite of passage... I call it a old-fashioned and outdated concept. It goes right out the window along with the idea that "if a girl's old enough to bleed down there, she's old enough to be having sex and be married!"
Especially with how you point out that teenagers are now hitting puberty much earlier. come to think of it, I hit it pretty damn early too... around nine and half years old.
So if people were to stick by old, outdated concepts like rite of passages for boys... then I should had been married off and my virginity despoiled by some dirty old man at the age of nine. just like that Wife of Muhammad's!So if boys are hitting puberty earlier... then boys young as 9 should be undergoing rites of passages with women who could be much older than their moms. doesn't that thought disturb you at all? That's why I think trying to justify the idea of Boys with older women as a "rite of passage" is stupid. Why not just tell the boys to lay with girls of their own age? They're bound to have more in common, and plus maybe have a relationship longer than a one-night stand (which apparently happens a lot with older women). even if it only lasts for a month or less, as some teenage relationships are bound to go, it's still better because it'll give the boys more pleasant memories of the girl who they had their first time with.
just my personal opinion.