That's too vague. Ladies resent it when they're not noticed and complimented by the gentlemen, even trade compliments among themselves, but as soon as a guy even looks their way or says anything nice at all even about the weather they're pressing charges and filing a sexual harassment suit.
I don't understand the mechanics of that attraction. There are older ladies in good shape nice bodies etc. etc. available for men who really don't need to be so intimate with girls young enough to be their daughters. But that isn't happening.
There are "cougars," older ladies who affectively date younger men, but they tend to be "aunts" who procure even younger girls for the men they "date."
I am 66 almost 67. To me, anybody under 30 is a kid. I got married when I was 21, she 20 and been married ever since. That said, yes. At any age, if they get knocked up, marriage should be an option if they choose it. BTW, we did not attempt to or have our first child for 3 years, preferring to have more time for just us, in the beginning. Kids generally need to wait on getting married or having babies, as often they are stupid kids. Sometimes the best is to handle their responsibilities as a team.So you support children getting married?
Older men robbing the cradle, and some of them are highly educated doctors, very learned in certain social protocols and medical procedures.That said, yes. At any age, if they get knocked up, marriage should be an option if they choose it.
Long engagements or unconsummated marriages or annulments have been a serious vice problem in many conservative churches, notwithstanding birth control drugs which are carcinogenic and have other side effects.BTW, we did not attempt to or have our first child for 3 years, preferring to have more time for just us, in the beginning
I know. But some of those older women have a certain lifestyle going on, which excludes men, and they pass themselves off as "too old" for the men their own age, there's a lot of social matchmaking and vice taking place, and they procure younger women or girls for the men, arrange a set-up or a pick-up, call the cops and have the older guy arrested for picking up a young girl. And that's how older women back out of a dating situation with a man they don't like. Talking shit all day long with the other ladies who aren't necessarily lesbians or aware of all the vice they are participating in.The whole idea of chasing younger women baffles me. I am not going to chase some woman I have nothing in common with just because her tits don't sag. There are too many amazing older women out there.
Adolescence is a wild time for both sexes, strange and unfortunately inviting. Nobody mentioned long engagements, or lesbian church ladies, except you. Lots of birth control drugs are out there without many effects in the long term, while usually effective, preventing conception while doing the deed. As I said, Cuomo is not going to stop them from doing the deed. Most adolescent girls that get knocked up are knocked up playing around with adolescent boys and while certainly not advisable for it to happen, it generally is not effective to criminalize and pretty darn hypocritical, in a state that doesn't even plan to prosecute prostitution anymore. It is an ignorant change of law.Older men robbing the cradle, and some of them are highly educated doctors, very learned in certain social protocols and medical procedures.
Long engagements or unconsummated marriages or annulments have been a serious vice problem in many conservative churches, notwithstanding birth control drugs which are carcinogenic and have other side effects.
But there are other means for lesbian church ladies to get pregnant by transferring semen without actually having sexual intercourse, especially if they desire to remain in a "marriage of convenience" as a cover for a lifestyle where they generally prefer the company of other women to that of men.
Their male counterparts, I don't really know, but there have been innumerable wars and battles between Catholic "bigots" and Protestant "fagots."
Extremely conservative churches.Nobody mentioned long engagements, or lesbian church ladies, except you. Lots of birth control drugs
Marriage is a contract. Can minors <18 engage in other legal contracts or purchase real estate?It is an ignorant change of law.
That's because the age of consent for a girl to have premarital sex is lower than the age of consent for her to become lawfully married.
Which begs the question, who are all these older men who are essentially "robbing the cradle" for a bedmate or sex partner?
How do they intend to end the relationship and move on with their money and finances and civil rights intact?
How are they eliminating the boys from competition?
These are independently wealthy men picking up girls, and they are not to be taken lightly for fools.
Relatively, but that's still an "older man" to a 15–16 year old girl. They wear frilly wedding dresses and dress the groom in a somber suit all the same as if he were attending a funeral — otherwise he'd be a "gay man" at his own wedding.Nope.. most are young men .. 19 to 25.
The state govts can recognize legal competence to sign into binding contracts based on "age of consent" (which citizens vote on to establish as policy).So does the government have to treat marriage to the 2 year old as real? Or do we agree that the government needs to set some standard for who is old enough to legitimately marry?
Not everyone believes in govt managing social benefits through taxes ummmmmmHuh? The position of the post I responded to seemed to be that government has no business saying who can get married. The (obvious) response is that recognizing marriage necessarily involves government benefits, so government obviously has to decide which marriages are legitimate for that purpose. And, more specifically, age criteria are obviously relevant to that determination -- e.g., a "marriage" to a 2-year-old does not hold up as legitimate.
I don't know the answers to the questions you are posing about the lineage of a hypothetical child or some kind of mafia violence. If your point is relevant to anything, please try to explain it and I will try to follow your logic.
No. Just no. Absolutely not. Not in this life. Not at any rate."civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" to specify legal terms and conditions of financial or custodial/estate agreements between consenting parties
Justina, you sound like you really live in a narrow pervy world and viewpoint on that state. It really isn't old men picking up and impregnating little girls in the majority of adolescent instances, no matter your limit person experience. If you had a bad experience along those lines, I am truly sorry.Extremely conservative churches.
"The pill" is what girls somewhat affectionately or humorously call their own organ when they are with other girls.
Marriage is a contract. Can minors <18 engage in other legal contracts or purchase real estate?
It's not happening between girls and boys, no, not at that age. Premarital sex, perhaps, but not marriage when both of them are <18.
There's invariably an older man who picked up a younger girl in those cases. This is downtown New York City with rabbis and Jewish matchmakers of any religion you please. There's a bakery decorating a wedding cake, and the young girl is a "lesbian" if she doesn't agree to .
marry the older man.
Adolescent boys are experiencing delayed puberty which is why the precocious-puberty-afflicted girls want older men.Justina, you sound like you really live in a narrow pervy world and viewpoint on that state. It really isn't old men picking up and impregnating little girls in the majority of adolescent instances, no matter your limit person experience. If you had a bad experience along those lines, I am truly sorry.
Hmm, you seem to be making reasoned points that require thoughtful consideration. Throwing me for a loop here. Allow me a moment to reboot to sane mode, after whatever mode some prior posters put me in, and I'll chime in.Not everyone believes in govt managing social benefits through taxes ummmmmm
Wouldn't it make more sense for political parties to manage Cooperative social programs and benefits for their own members, so they can agree to make it mandatory and decide all the terms and benefits they want based on their own beliefs? Churches can run and fund their own social support programs as they believe, like the Mormons that have their own version of social welfare as temporary assistance, or Catholics run their own schools, orphanage or adoption programs and prolife outreach, without mandating that or forcing taxpayers to fund it. Why not require all Parties to manage their political beliefs similar to how other religious organizations do for their own members?
As stated before, the govt can establish age of consent to enter legal contracts, based on the population voting on secular policies.
As for anything involving relative beliefs, either the public has to consent before making public policies regarding faith based beliefs, or these need to be separated from govt so people retain free exercise of their beliefs.
Can we have a conversation about that, and what distinguishes political beliefs from objective public policy?
Before we can host any Conventions to reform govt, we should be able to maintain a conversation without imposing beliefs back and forth on others!
Thanks for asking for more intelligent and objective discussions.
If you start asking for this on other media formats, that's enough to start the next revolution...