Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Fancy a bit of Ginger? NSFW

Has it ever been acceptable for men over 50 to lech over 16 year olds ? its weird at best in my book , just because something is legal doesn't mean its right .
Probably not but it is legal. Our lass has a mate with 16 year old daughter. The young lass in question is stunningly beautiful and frankly is a really nice kid. As a 50 year old I could pop up to Scotland and marry her without her parents consent, and as @greenbaggyskin points out I could perform numerous sexually deviant acts with her without any legal comebacks. However, if I take a photo of her in her bikini on our honeymoon then I'm committing an offence and will end up on the register.

I think that someone got their priorities wrong there.
 
Probably not but it is legal. Our lass has a mate with 16 year old daughter. The young lass in question is stunningly beautiful and frankly is a really nice kid. As a 50 year old I could pop up to Scotland and marry her without her parents consent, and as @greenbaggyskin points out I could perform numerous sexually deviant acts with her without any legal comebacks. However, if I take a photo of her in her bikini on our honeymoon then I'm committing an offence and will end up on the register.

I think that someone got their priorities wrong there.
Apparently not. If you're married it's OK.
 

Stabwedge

Old-Salt
Why, hello Miss Jones.

084FE8D3-0252-43EE-845D-D8286C989284.jpeg
 

Joe_Private

On ROPS
On ROPs
A bit too much of the ‘Top of the Pops’ demographic for me.

I think perhaps the COs should establish an age limit.

I’d not like to become a Pete Townsend walt whilst conducting legitimate ‘research’.
She's fully clothed. You are undressing her with your own eyes, you pervert. Would you ban BB's crying babies because of their age? Because all she is is a teenager wearing what teenagers wear. You don't have to sexually objectify her.
 
She's fully clothed. You are undressing her with your own eyes, you pervert. Would you ban BB's crying babies because of their age? Because all she is is a teenager wearing what teenagers wear. You don't have to sexually objectify her.

It’s all context isn’t it?

What with this being the ‘fancy a bit of ginger’ thread...

I’m not the one sexually objectifying her, and whilst the law might be an ass, it’s still the law.

I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
 

Joe_Private

On ROPS
On ROPs
It’s all context isn’t it?

What with this being the ‘fancy a bit of ginger’ thread...

I’m not the one sexually objectifying her, and whilst the law might be an ass, it’s still the law.

I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
You are correct, the law is the law; has one been broken?
 

Joe_Private

On ROPS
On ROPs
Don’t be a ****. We were discussing the risk of the site inadvertently breaking one.
No, you were discussing how you viewed pictures of fully clothed teenagers. You are suggesting that, had the girl in question happened to be younger than seventeen, then a law might have been breached, presumably because you found the image to be sexual in nature.
 
No, you were discussing how you viewed pictures of fully clothed teenagers. You are suggesting that, had the girl in question happened to be younger than seventeen, then a law might have been breached, presumably because you found the image to be sexual in nature.

It might be difficult but you’ll have to maintain concentration through a number of posts to fully understand what we were talking about.

But you crack on defending posting pictures of young girls in the ‘FANCY a bit of ginger’ thread.
 

Joe_Private

On ROPS
On ROPs
It might be difficult but you’ll have to maintain concentration through a number of posts to fully understand what we were talking about.

But you crack on defending posting pictures of young girls in the ‘FANCY a bit of ginger’ thread.
Not only are you a self-admitted nonce, but you're a patronising one at that. You'll note I have not posted any pictures in this thread, nor commented in it on how I found pictures of teenagers attractive. Unlike you and a few others.
18717
 
Last edited:
All of human history probably, until about 20 years ago.

Not only are you a self-admitted nonce, but you're a patronising one at that. You'll note I have not posted any pictures in this thread, nor commented in it on how I found pictures of teenagers attractive. Unlike you and a few others.
But you are defending the posting of said pictures in a thread which is clearly soft porn.
 

Joe_Private

On ROPS
On ROPs
But you are defending the posting of said pictures in a thread which is clearly soft porn.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I have pointed out that the pictures which aroused so much debate amongst a group of middle aged men were of a person who was fully clad, and any sexualisation was a product of their own thought processes.
 
Not only are you a self-admitted nonce, but you're a patronising one at that. You'll note I have not posted any pictures in this thread, nor commented in it on how I found pictures of teenagers attractive. Unlike you and a few others.
18717

Exactly the opposite.

I’m the one saying not to post pictures of young girls in a thread that is expressly intended for people to post pictures of attractive women.

I’ll assume you are in agreement not to post pictures girls under 16.

Therefore, what you are expressly defending is the posting of pictures of 16-17 year old girls. On the ‘fancy a bit of ginger’ thread.

As I assume you’re a native English speaker I don’t doubt you understand what ‘fancy’ means. If that’s a problem the hundreds of soft porn pics on the thread should provide you with a bit of a clue. So don’t give me that ‘you’re objectifying these girls’ bolleaux.

You can do as much flailing and whataboutery as you like, but it’s you who’s looking like a nonce.
 

Latest Threads

Top