[ALEXIS_DH]

depending where.
in the US?? i´d say 16.
in south america? i´d say 18-19.

last year in alabama, i went out a few times with a 17yo when i was 20 i met in the school library.
she was substantially more experienced than most 23-24yo southamerican girls i know.
and a friend of mine got married with a 16yo!!! (he was 28 at that time) couple years ago (alabama of course)

 

[BurlyShirley]

Alexis, when you say "more experienced" do you mean sluttier?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Alexis, when you say "more experienced" do you mean sluttier?

not exactly in an explicit way, i´d say more sincere and mature with respect her own sexuality. (seriously, though it may sound like a joke).

 

[-dustin]

28 marrying a 16yr old? that's ****ed up.

 

[BurlyShirley]

not exactly in an explicit way, i´d say more sincere and mature with respect her own sexuality. (seriously, though it may sound like a joke).

oh, so slutty then.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

28 marrying a 16yr old? that's ****ed up.

dude, more f***ed up is the fact that the PARENTS of the girl came up with the idea of the wedding first, and were also the happiest in the reception!!!!!!!!!

i´d say the US society is much more comfortable and open about its sexuality than most others(maybe not the european or australian).

i had a talk about that with some brazilian, venezuelan an colombian friends in the US a while ago, and almost all of us kinda agreed that we got less action back home than in the US. probably due to the earlier sexuality in the US-ers.

at age 18 most middle-class US teenagers are relatively more mature and open. at age 18 most middle-class south-americans are still girly-girls and white-sock-wearing-boys.
i´d say there is a 2 o 3 years advantage to the US teens in terms of sex development.

i remember when i moved to nyc when i was 17, and i inmediately noticed in the first 3 weeks of school that those 18yo freshmen girls i met were soooo much more open and sexual than my 18yo friends back home.

 

[PsychO!1]

i had a talk about that with some brazilian, venezuelan an colombian friends in the US a while ago, and almost all of us kinda agreed that we got less action back home than in the US.....

It's the foreign guy thing....chicks dig the exotic foriegn guys with exotic accents.

 

[RideND]

If shes old enough to pee, she's old enough for me.


I think I heard that one from Burly actually.

 

[RideND]

I'm 18 and a 15 year old would be fine with me.

 

[bmxr]

Our economy and social system that makes it virtually impossible to move out and be a productive member of society at that age is what F'ks stuff up.

Looka at all the women, my wife included that have to use fertility treatments to concieve at 35 and up because they waited until after finishing educations and getting real jobs before tryin to have their offspring.

Dude, I totally agree. My wife had our first son when she was 22, and we have had two more since. She finished college, but this was more important to us than her having a "career". Rainsing our kids and motherhood in general is a more valuable career than anything else she could have done.

When it's all said and done, we will have spent ten or fifteen years more with our family by the time we die, then the hordes of forty-something women that have kids in diapers. It's kind of sad for us because my wife can't hardly relate to any of the other moms, because they are all 10-20 years older than her.

But back on topic...

It seems like we all basically agree. In a world without cultural constraints or the need to date, most of us would "just hit it" if she is fully developed, regardless of age. That seems to happen around 15-16 usually. Personally, I just have no interest in talking to a girl that young, which I presume even you monkeys might want to do a [little[/i] before nailing someone

So I would make the cutoff 18, becuase 18-24 year olds are a LOT more fun to party with in gerenal and still have the perky-tittines of youth Lucky for me my wife is 27 and looks 17 :heart:

 

[binary visions]

Maybe we should be getting busy earlier and just set up our infrastructure to be less of a hamper on those who have kids. Maybe we should have our kids before college and just assure that instituions of secondary learning and job settings all provide viable child care options.

Just re-reading this thread and wanted to make a completly off-topic comment on this.

Frankly, given the current population of the earth and the uncontrollable way we're comsuming its resources, it's probably just as well that our structure IS set up the way it is. I mean, sure, in the wild it's important to have more kids faster - the more kids you have, the more likely your species is to survive. There's no problem of overpopulation because as soon as a species starts to overpopulate an area, they consume all of the resources and start to die. They don't have the option of moving to another country, or taking up a vegetarian diet when all the game is killed off.

Can you imagine if humans as a species started to do that? Sure, it wasn't that long ago that 15 year olds were having kids and acting like responsible adults, but it's not just western culture that has started discouraging that. All over the world, women's rights are growing and women are starting to demand equal opportunities for education, careers, and their own lives.

This is a good thing for women, and a good thing for our population. Women can take fertility treatments, and sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't, but it's not like we're at a point where a few infertile people here and there are going to bring our species to a grinding halt. It means that there are that many fewer mouths to feed, on a planet that already has too many.

Just thinking out loud...

 

[narlus]

there's a book i've been wanting to read (at the urging of my father-in-law) for a while now called _The Ultimate Resource_. the main premise is that *more* people are a good thing, as you get more people trying to solve any particular issue (ie, problems can be defeated via technology). now, there *is* a finite amount of raw materials and open space, but there are also definitely new technologies to be discovered which will make things either more efficient so we use less resources, or figure out other means (ie, out of the box, quantum leap stuff).

here's the amazon link to it:

http://tinyurl.com/3swj8

now i just gotta find the time to plow through this (and infinite jest, and gravity's rainbow).

 

[binary visions]

Cool.

I'll have to pick up a copy of that sometime. Thanks for the link.

 

[golgiaparatus]

18-19 is probably as young as I could go.

My preferred age is about 25

 

[BurlyShirley]

I plan for my 2nd wife to be about 22 when Im about 44. That'll be awesome.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Okay - since only boys have responded to this thread...lol...hows about a somewhat edumacated girl response .
********20 minutes later*********
Now that I've typed out my initial anecdotal response and deleted it...

On a purely reproductive scale, age shouldn't be an issue so long as she's fertile and ripe; but then again if this were true, neither would rape, unless of course she was another man's property at which point it might count as theft.

However, we're kind of past the era when discussing the right "age" has anything to do with reproduction - at least in our current "1st world", economically wealthy society (I recognize that maybe in Burma, or as a member of a tribe living in the rain forests of south america it could behoove a family to procreate like rabbits).

Instead - the appropriate age for each person should be with another person fully capable of accepting the emotional and financial risks he/she is undertaking - thus not someone who's still in the childish state of early teenage hood in our current society (read - emotionally retarded). That is for the one-night stand that could get knocked up, and should at least be capable of handling the costs of appropriate levels of birth control.
For a long term relationship - it should be with someone of a compatible mind.

As for the rest of my opinion of this particular discussion - look but don't touch, and if you do touch, you deserve whatever you may get as a result.

 

[Slugman]

For a long term relationship - it should be with someone of a compatible mind.

So you agree that for this group 15yr. olds is just about right

And how young of a man would you go after? neaky: (and no i'm not hitting on ya since I'm older and married...)

 

[Jr_Bullit]

lol, well in highschool I dated a guy 6 months younger than me...and I'm absolutely certain I will be one of those heinous grandmotherly sorts in my 70s who loudly checks out the hotties bums as they walk by my wheelchair.

However, unlike most men and some women, I personally cannot imagine "hitting it" unless I was somewhat emotionally involved - and that means the gent needs to appeal to me intellectually.

And...uhm...if this group is 18 or under, then ya 15 is fine - but if you're legal to drink in this country then it's look, sure, but don't touch. And if you're above the 30 mark, or 40 mark, the mature and sexy tigresses out there should be more appealing then an immature kitten.

Maybe men are just intimidated by a sexy 30 year old woman who just hit her sexual stride/peak as their "libidos" are starting to wane.

 

[ummbikes]

And if you're above the 30 mark, or 40 mark, the mature and sexy tigresses out there should be more appealing then an immature kitten.

Very true. I'm 34, Mrs. Ummbikes is 35. She is way more, uhh, tigress-like than this spawned out tiger could have ever imagined 10 years ago when she was my blushing bride. Bottom line (anecdotal evidence alert) in my experience mi esposa is exponentally more sexual than any of the many (o.k. few) women I was active with before she and I married. The non-scientific world has know that women peak sexually later in life, and science is more willing to say so also these days.

So based on what I know, if my wife were to die or trade me in for an easy to manage 20 year old buck, I wouldn't consider a woman under the age of 27-30 for boot knocking.

 

[bmxr]

Maybe men are just intimidated by a sexy 30 year old woman who just hit her sexual stride/peak as their "libidos" are starting to wane.

In my experience, that is what women who have "hit-the-wall" and are a little bitter, say to make themselves feel better about their diminished sexual attractiveness to younger, more virile guys.

Economic bla, bla, first-world, bla, bla, emotionally involved, bla, bla ... None of it means ANYTHING in the context of "would you hit it", when you ask a representative sample of guys. It also doesn't mean that we are "boys", though the feminists of the world will dispute that to the death.

That is what I think most females tend not (or don't want) to understand about guys. Millions of years of procreating in "rain forests" have programmed us for chasing young hotties (even if the one you find is dull, ignorant, and stupid). It has also programmed us not to marry that dumb young hottie, though some men obviously do.

I do half-way agree with you though. The perfect girl for me is one that has the knowledge and experience of a 30 year-old, and the body, face, and skin of an 18 year old!

 

[ohio]

Hard numbers don't do justice to the range of ages at which different women mature. I prefer a scale that allows for these differing physical and emotional milestones:

"If there's grass on the field, play ball!"

 

[narlus]

that doesn't explain sandlot ball.

 

[ohio]

that doesn't explain sandlot ball.

That's because for the game I'm thinking of, sand is a very bad thing.

 

[dwaugh]

...look but don't touch...

OK, if you say so... neaky:
















I'm 15.