Rhode Island - Teen Strippers, Old enough to Be Indoor Hookers but too Young to Drive

[Merlot]

How wonderfully, perfectly sexist. Boys, I expect, aren't 'distorted'? If I understand what you are saying, we need to protect all the little girls in the world from sex, which is damaging, but yet, you yourself actively use them at a slightly older age as prostitutes.

What I am saying is that young people should be able to do what they want with whom they want, and arresting an 18 year old because his girlfriend is a few months shy of her birthday is stupid.

Furthermore, speaking of physical nubility only, I am underscoring the duplicity of those who draw an artificial chronological line between one pair of breasts and another. There are plenty of 16 years olds with the physical assets and the mental acumen and maturity to work in a strip club just as there are many 18 years olds who haven't. But yet, we hear here that touching a 17 year-old is 'sick' and an 18 year old one month later proper and wholesome.

I won't even get into 'age of majority' laws which are very modern, and bizarre from a historical perspective, or the ignorant moralistic stance of 'sick vs. proper' in that context. (to those who called me sick, go ask your grandparents at what age they and their friends began to get married off. And why marriage was promoted at such a young age).

Do I respond to nubility? You betcha I do, like all others at whom modern-day advertisement is aimed at.

Anyone care to guess why it is so many escort agencies hire '18' year-olds? Or why the majority of strippers are that age?

You are right in that an arbitrary line does need to be drawn, I just wonder why a month's difference makes any real difference at all to those who profess concern about a girl's well-being. And why, given their concern, they avail themselves of the services of prostitutes and strippers, given how damaging that can be.

Hey,

You are being quite obtuse. "Sexist"! Did you actually...like...well...Read! How could you miss it when I said: "whether it's a male or female no one is ready to handle sex maturely at age 14, 16"? Is that "sexist". Oh right. When you quoted me you deleted the paragraph containing this part where I was treating male and female equally. Where is your integrity there???

Then you dare to label the same older minors (16 years old) we are talking about as "little girls", which were not in any way part of this conversation until you brought it up. You make the most misdirected, misconnected, and disgusting insinuation that "little girls" are "prostitutes at a slightly older age. How idiotic, and how truly hypocritical when YOU are the one ready to charge off to Providence to see them strip.

In the first place I never said I had met any 18 year old prostitute, you said it. And, I have been the one against anyone under 18 being able to strip, or being promiscuous. So if you find anyone sick for being interested in strippers under 18 go and take a good hard look in the mirror pal.

Yeah, it seems silly to arrest someone for having sex with someone one month under that age of consent. So what would you do? Would you keep lowering the age theoretically to 0, or just make the gray area so large the court should just throw out any law or statute of consent?

Considering that you have not repudiated either 16 years or 14 years of age having consensual sex or 17 year olds as strippers it is you, not anyone else, who has far more to answer for in your insinuations about "little girls". Hobbyists should be disgusted with you when you suggest anyone uses little girls as prostitutes at a slightly older age. You are way, way, way out of line, and it takes a filthy JACK*SS to think like that.

Oh right, because you mentioned males once and went on your 'won't somebody think of the little girls' rant afterwards.

Amazing that editing is in any way related to integrity in your mind, but, then again Mike Mercury nailed it a few posts back.

Does it take mentioning males a million times to work for your mind. But you made sure to leave it out anyway.

Aren't you late going to see 17 year old strippers in Providence...lol.

you are FOS!!!

Merlot

 

[YouVantOption]

Hey,

You are being quite obtuse. "Sexist"! Did you actually...like...well...Read! How could you miss it when I said: "whether it's a male or female no one is ready to handle sex maturely at age 14, 16"? Is that "sexist". Oh right. When you quoted me you deleted the paragraph containing this part where I was treating male and female equally. Where is your integrity there???

Then you dare to label the same older minors (16 years old) we are talking about as "little girls", which are were not in any way part of this conversation until you brought it up. You make the most misdirected, misconnected, and disgusting insinuation that "little girls" are "prostitutes at a slightly older age. How idiotic, and how truly hypocritical when YOU are the one ready to charge off to Providence to see them strip.

In the first place I never said I had met any 18 year old prostitute, you said it. And, I have been the one against anyone under 18 being able to strip, or being promiscuous. So if you find anyone sick for being interested in strippers under 18 go and take a good hard look in the mirror pal.

Yeah, it seems silly to arrest someone for having sex with someone one month under that age of consent. So what would you do? Would you keep lowering the age theoretically to 0, or just make the gray area so large the court should just throw out any law or statute of consent?

Considering that you have not repudiated either 16 years or 14 years of age it is you, not anyone else, who has far more to answer for in your insinuations about "little girls". Every hobbyist should be disgusted with you when you suggest anyone uses little girls as prostitutes at a slightly older age. You are way, way, way out of line, and it takes a filthy JACK*SS to think like that.



Does it take mentioning males a million times to work for your mind. But you made sure to leave it out anyway.

Aren't you late going to see 17 year olds in Providence...lol.

you are FOS!!!

Merlot

If you were to re-write this in English, perhaps I could respond. Until then, WTV.

 

[Time to Punt]

.......................................................17 year olds as strippers it is you, not anyone else, who has far more to answer for in your insinuations about "little girls". Hobbyists should be disgusted with you when you suggest anyone uses little girls as prostitutes at a slightly older age. You are way, way, way out of line, and it takes a filthy JACK*SS to think like that.



Does it take mentioning males a million times to work for your mind. But you made sure to leave it out anyway.

Aren't you late going to see 17 year old strippers in Providence...lol.

you are FOS!!!

Merlot

I have to agree with you Merlot, except I thought it was 16 year olds that was the turn-on for him. Quite a bit of backpedalling since then but it would appear that the underlying predilections remain. Looks like the lethal weapon is firing blanks

By definition they are not underage. As far as I am concerned, some 16 year old legally wants me to have my hands on her titties, who am I to deny her her right to make a dollar?

 

[Merlot]

By definition they are not underage. As far as I am concerned, some 16 year old legally wants me to have my hands on her titties, who am I to deny her her right to make a dollar?

no, completely wrong. Until the Conservatives changed the age a year ago, it was 14, and anybody above that age could bone them, so long as they weren't in a position of authority. Now, it is 16.

I have to agree with you Merlot, except I thought it was 16 year olds that was the turn-on for him. Quite a bit of backpedalling since then but it would appear that the underlying predilections remain. Looks like the lethal weapon is firing blanks

Hello Time to Punt,

YVO sure is very concerned about this subject in more posts than anyone else about the exact ages young ladies can legally work as strippers, prostitutes, or have sex with others. To be fair he does use a qualifier in one or two later posts that it is only legal for 14 or 16 year olds to have sex with those 2 or 3 years from their own age, at the time when the age of consent applied to them. But his early posts are very disconcerting.

Being more generous than YVO was when he used filthy totally misplaced innuendo and tried to exploit every unexpressed element or absent qualifier as an opportunity to slander others, we might accept his later explanations distancing men his age from direct involvement with ladies under 18. In the two quotes above maybe his thoughts were incomplete or not as accurately expressed as he thought they were. But whereas all he has against others are cheap innuendos he has to reach for or make up, the two statements above that he made are disturbing and plain as written. Considering he could edit these any time he wants to be more accurate about what he meant, what is the reader to believe about his intentions. Looking at these statements, he's got a lot of gall using innuendos against others when his own standing statements are speak for themselves.

We all know that self-righteous and easily offended people all have something to hide.

This is the kind of fast and easy quip that is often little more than generalized BS. It's a cheap way to escape the task of responsible expression. Obviously the kinkiest sort would take no offense to sexual impropriety at all.

ish,

Merlot

 

[Ben Dover]

We all know that self-righteous and easily offended people all have something to hide.

Very insightful Mike. I would strongly agree with you on this one....


BD

 

[Mike Mercury]

Hello Time to Punt,

This is the kind of fast and easy quip that is often little more than generalized BS. It's a cheap way to escape the task of responsible expression. Obviously the kinkiest sort would take no offense to sexual impropriety at all.

ish,

Merlot

I'll repeat it. People that are self-righteous and easily-offended are hiding something.
I'll take it further, they are hiding more than the average person is, they may not know what they are hiding and they want to guilt trip others as subliminal compensation.

One day you will see how accurate that statement is.

 

[Merlot]

I'll repeat it. People that are self-righteous and easily-offended are hiding something.
I'll take it further, they are hiding more than the average person is, they may not know what they are hiding and they want to guilt trip others as subliminal compensation.

Hey MM,

Trite little over-generalized quips are cheap, easy, and bogus.

It's hardly self-righteous to be a bit disturbed that an older man wants to charge off to see 16 year olds strip. Wouldn't it be much more disturbing to you if all of we older men also wanted to charge off for that purpose...ish! Or does that bother YOU???

No one was being moralistic or defining anyone as this or that. We expressed our views on our opinions for a more reasonable age for strippers and prostitutes than being under 18. It's not unnatural or moralistic to say younger teens should not be able to strip, or be put off that some 40 or 50 year old is eager to get his hands on 16 year old "titties". Excuse me if my revulsion to that offended you.

If you are so easily offended that most of the older men find the idea of an older guy leering at 16 year olds is a bit disturbing then you should reread your own words while taking a hard look in the mirror. Your implying a normal reaction by any norm is something ugly seems very defensive and subliminal.

One day you will see how accurate that statement is.

I do see your posts.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[Time to Punt]

I'll repeat it. People that are self-righteous and easily-offended are hiding something.
I'll take it further, they are hiding more than the average person is, they may not know what they are hiding and they want to guilt trip others as subliminal compensation.

One day you will see how accurate that statement is.

Perhaps you could clarify your point just slightly for me. What eactly is the deciding factor between being simply against something vs. or being offended vs. being easily offended ? Merlot is right, this is where these trite little sayings break down.

Who do you think is more self-righteous and easily offended in respect to this subject:

1) Those that think that sex workers should be at least 18 or;

2) Those that are easily offended by people who express that opinion .

True,there are many examples of what you are talking about , the most memorable usually being politicians with anti-gay public stances who end up being caught switch-hitting. To apply this across the board though strikes me as a bit Dr Phil -ish. In otherwords overly simplistic.

Using your criteria anyone who took a moral stance on any issue would be suspect. Abortion or Right to Life, war or troop withdrawal. Pick a side, it doesn't matter.

If you don't want people to think you have something to hide just don't be offended by anything ? Doesn't quite hold water all the time does it.

 

[eastender]

Advocating vs Offended

There is a false assumption that expressing a positive position implies that the speaker is offended by the opposite.

Someone advocating a healthy lifestyle is simply advocating a healthy lifestyle. Implying or reaching the conclusion that such an advocate is offended by a particular lifestyle that negatively impacts on a persons health or on society is false.

 

[Possum Trot]

I'm offended

Well I have no problem admitting that I'm offended by 30 plus droolin' pervs pawing a 16 year old stripper .

As with most on this board, I also do have something to hide. I will admit I see high end escorts. I am not, however, Jimmy Swaggert nor am I Larry Craig .

If you are never morally offended I guess that must mean you have no morals. I admit my morals are low in some peoples eyes because I avail myself of legal prostitution, but even I have boundaries.

Suffice to say that I'm not offended by anything two consenting adults do. I just don't consider a 16 year old an adult in the context of interacting with men twice her age. Men who are in their '30's or 40's who are sexually attracted to her, in anything other than in the context of a momentarily fond recollection of their high school days, happen to make my skin crawl.

Sorry, if anyone is "outraged" at that or feels that it is being self-righteous.

 

[metoo4]

Some 16yo girls are friggin' hot! But usually, the cure for me is to get them to speak... More often than anything else, I then loose interest quite fast!

Would I go to a 16yo stripper? Not knowingly. But we have to admit some 16yo look anything but 16 or below! I used to know some 16yo who were going to bars without getting carded while their 20yo friends were carded every time!

 

[Possum Trot]

Would I go to a 16yo stripper? Not knowingly. But we have to admit some 16yo look anything but 16 or below! I used to know some 16yo who were going to bars without getting carded while their 20yo friends were carded every time!

You can always be fooled by someone who looks older and I give a "pass" to anyone this has happened to. My objection is with those that specifically seek out the 16 year old solely because she is 16.

 

[Merlot]

At 12 years old i was 5"8-9 with a C breast........

The first few times i had sex it was with men in the half 20th, they were thinking i was 18-19 when i wasnt 15 yet (but closed)

Everybody was calling me "jailbait"

Hello B.

This is like saying that because a late 14 year old looks like a more adult woman, or as a 12 year old is 5'8"-9" with a C breast it should be fine and legal for men in their mid 20s to bang her? So if any guy says, "I didn't know she was 14! She looked 18-19 to me", that makes it all right? So are you saying the law or morality should be based on what any guy says he thought about her age. NO WAY! Gee what are the chances any guy would ever lie about that? This case is not about being deceived by anyone's looks anyway.

Some 16yo girls are friggin' hot! But usually, the cure for me is to get them to speak... More often than anything else, I then loose interest quite fast!

Would I go to a 16yo stripper? Not knowingly. But we have to admit some 16yo look anything but 16 or below! I used to know some 16yo who were going to bars without getting carded while their 20yo friends were carded every time!

Hello Metoo,

And, it goes the other way also. Many look younger than they are. But the issue of mistaken impressions about young ladies is not the point of this thread.

You can always be fooled by someone who looks older and I give a "pass" to anyone this has happened to. My objection is with those that specifically seek out the 16 year old solely because she is 16.

This is the issue of this thread. Is it appropriate for 16 year olds to strip, or for clients to make it profitable for them to do so by creating a demand for 16 year old strippers? In both cases I say no.

To take this side of the opinions may have a significant moral basis, but it's also about concern for the proper maturity level to handle the inherent atmosphere and well known temptations in strip clubs. Regarding the 16 year old, while no age guarantees maturity it is certain that the typical 16 year old is less capable than the typical 18 year old or 21 year old. That is as important as any moral aspect.

Regarding clients who would seek out 16 year old dancers, as shown in this thread, at the very least they are enabling young women who are in my opinion too young to take on the task and temptations of the business. Then the idea of adult men enjoying dances by 16 year olds is unseemly to me.

As time to Punt said: having an opinion on an issue that has moral aspects is not inherently self-righteous or indicative of dark hidden quirks. If that were they case then it would be impossible to have any such view or opinion that wasn't self-righteous. Insistence on that kind of underlying phobic view itself indicates more self-righteousness than simply giving a viewpoint on any moral question.

Cheers,

Merlot