Have you ever hooked up with someone much younger or older?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, 17 and 45. Actually, much more than hooked up. Yes, it was really messed up.

Yes. If you were the 17 year old I'm sorry that happened to you. If you were the 45 year old you're disgusting and I hope you rot in hell.

Sorry but they're both disgusting. I've known teen girls who went after married older men for fun/to tempt/ to crush on. Going as far as traveling miles to see them.

Go eff yourself. I was a 17 year old child. He was a 45 year old horny bastard to lied about everytthing he could including his age. 45 year old men can’t be seduced by children. They have agency.

it would be serious crime for a person who is a legal adult (either 18 or 21) to have sex with a 17 year old. you're saying that a 45 year old man lied to say that he was under 18 or 21 and you believed him?

The thing about statutory rape is that it doesn't matter what she believed. A 45-year-old who has sex with a 17-year-old is a rapist, period.

It actually depends on the state. I’m surprised how many people have asked (not many, but more than I’d suspect) if my husband and I broke laws because we stated dating when I was 19 and he was 17 (freshman year of college). By the time we were having sex he was over 18, but I was curious and looked it up - our college apparently was in a state where the age of consent is 16. (Interestingly, they also have “Romeo and Juliet” laws making sex legal at age 14 if you’re within 2 years of age - but I’m two years and 2 days older than he is so that wouldn’t have applied in our case)

That was wildly different than 17 and 45. 17 and 19 are basically the same mentally and experience wise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, 17 and 45. Actually, much more than hooked up. Yes, it was really messed up.

You molested and messed up a minor. Sicko. Just nasty and disgusting.

I was 17 dimbass

Homewrecker.

Nothing wrong with that. Especially in DC. In DC age of consent is 16. So if you're a 56 year old man and your banging a 16 year old girl, then there is nothing wrong with that.

That's disgusting. Someone needs to check your hard drive.

Nothing disgusting about it. 16 is totally legal in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, 17 and 45. Actually, much more than hooked up. Yes, it was really messed up.

You molested and messed up a minor. Sicko. Just nasty and disgusting.

I was 17 dimbass

Homewrecker.

Nothing wrong with that. Especially in DC. In DC age of consent is 16. So if you're a 56 year old man and your banging a 16 year old girl, then there is nothing wrong with that.

That's disgusting. Someone needs to check your hard drive. [/quote

Ok, here is the cold hard truth that a DC liberal doesn't want to admit. 16 is the age of consent in DC. That means a 60 year old man is free to pound away on a 16 year old girl. But the typical DC liberal will be ok with that in this one circumstance for on reason. Because they are black. You will devalue the well being of a young black girl, because it's impossible to stop this in the black culture. DC is unable to stop the libido of young black kids, so in order to avoid prosecuting a massive amount of you black men, they changed the law to allow 16 year olds to be pounded regularly. They would NEVER allow this if it were young white girls. This is the cold hard truth of the true racist nature of liberals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, 17 and 45. Actually, much more than hooked up. Yes, it was really messed up.

You molested and messed up a minor. Sicko. Just nasty and disgusting.

I was 17 dimbass

Homewrecker.

Nothing wrong with that. Especially in DC. In DC age of consent is 16. So if you're a 56 year old man and your banging a 16 year old girl, then there is nothing wrong with that.

That's disgusting. Someone needs to check your hard drive.

Nothing disgusting about it. 16 is totally legal in DC.

Legal doesn't make right or moral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, 17 and 45. Actually, much more than hooked up. Yes, it was really messed up.

Yes. If you were the 17 year old I'm sorry that happened to you. If you were the 45 year old you're disgusting and I hope you rot in hell.

Sorry but they're both disgusting. I've known teen girls who went after married older men for fun/to tempt/ to crush on. Going as far as traveling miles to see them.

Go eff yourself. I was a 17 year old child. He was a 45 year old horny bastard to lied about everytthing he could including his age. 45 year old men can’t be seduced by children. They have agency.

it would be serious crime for a person who is a legal adult (either 18 or 21) to have sex with a 17 year old. you're saying that a 45 year old man lied to say that he was under 18 or 21 and you believed him?

The thing about statutory rape is that it doesn't matter what she believed. A 45-year-old who has sex with a 17-year-old is a rapist, period.

It actually depends on the state. I’m surprised how many people have asked (not many, but more than I’d suspect) if my husband and I broke laws because we stated dating when I was 19 and he was 17 (freshman year of college). By the time we were having sex he was over 18, but I was curious and looked it up - our college apparently was in a state where the age of consent is 16. (Interestingly, they also have “Romeo and Juliet” laws making sex legal at age 14 if you’re within 2 years of age - but I’m two years and 2 days older than he is so that wouldn’t have applied in our case)

That was wildly different than 17 and 45. 17 and 19 are basically the same mentally and experience wise.

Exactly and I can't believe that poster would write something so disingenuously stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yes, 17 and 45. Actually, much more than hooked up. Yes, it was really messed up.

Yes. If you were the 17 year old I'm sorry that happened to you. If you were the 45 year old you're disgusting and I hope you rot in hell.

Sorry but they're both disgusting. I've known teen girls who went after married older men for fun/to tempt/ to crush on. Going as far as traveling miles to see them.

Go eff yourself. I was a 17 year old child. He was a 45 year old horny bastard to lied about everytthing he could including his age. 45 year old men can’t be seduced by children. They have agency.

it would be serious crime for a person who is a legal adult (either 18 or 21) to have sex with a 17 year old. you're saying that a 45 year old man lied to say that he was under 18 or 21 and you believed him?

The thing about statutory rape is that it doesn't matter what she believed. A 45-year-old who has sex with a 17-year-old is a rapist, period.

It actually depends on the state. I’m surprised how many people have asked (not many, but more than I’d suspect) if my husband and I broke laws because we stated dating when I was 19 and he was 17 (freshman year of college). By the time we were having sex he was over 18, but I was curious and looked it up - our college apparently was in a state where the age of consent is 16. (Interestingly, they also have “Romeo and Juliet” laws making sex legal at age 14 if you’re within 2 years of age - but I’m two years and 2 days older than he is so that wouldn’t have applied in our case)

Those laws exist not to protect children but to excuse predators.

You know goddamn well that a 17 year old and a 19 year old is not the same as a 17 year old and 45 year old.

Your poor attempt at whataboutism is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

I’m the one who wrote about the laws in different states - agree it’s a huge difference between 17-19 and 17-45. But was responding to the person who said it’s statutory rape - not necessarily (though I agree it’s gross and immoral). I think that age difference with someone that young probably SHOULD be rape but it’s not automatically.