What the fuck the guys touch their tits so many times. Creepy video.
Last edited:
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Would you bang a 16 year old? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Riet
- Start date
_trickster_
Currently High
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2009
- Messages
- 574
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2010
chick in the pink is smash extreme
zombie omie jay
Banned
smash both
also they are 18 sif channel v would risk that
get a pair of 18yr old twins who look ~16
live forever
also they are 18 sif channel v would risk that
get a pair of 18yr old twins who look ~16
live forever
If someone ~looks~ underage, it's the same as having someone who is genuinely underage under Australian law
Small breasted women ye
The presenters saying on air that they are 14, even if they aren't, would dig them a very deep hole
zombie omie jay
Banned
that hasnt been implemented yet has it brew
A Supreme Court judge has ruled that an internet cartoon, in which child characters resembling those from The Simpsons engage in sexual acts, is child pornography.
In a landmark finding, Justice Michael Adams today upheld a magistrate's decision convicting a man of possessing child pornography after the cartoons - depicting characters modelled on Bart, Lisa and Maggie engaging in sex acts - were found on his computer.
The main issue of the case was whether a fictional cartoon character could "depict" a "person" under law.
Alan John McEwan had been convicted in the Parramatta Local Court of possessing child pornography and of using a carriage service to access child pornography material, the latter of which has a maximum penalty of 10 years' jail.
The male figures in the cartoons had what appeared to be human genitalia, as did the mother and the girl depicted in the cartoons.
The magistrate said that, had the images involved real children, McEwan would have been jailed.
However, he was fined $3000 and required to enter into a two-year good behaviour bond in respect to each of the charges.
McEwan appealed against the decision, arguing that fictional cartoon characters could not be considered people as they "plainly and deliberately" departed from the human form.
"If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted," Justice Adams said in his judgment. "Their creation would constitute crimes at the very highest end of the criminal calendar."
But Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate. He found that, while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.
Justice Adams said the purpose of the legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of "real" children are depicted.
However it was also to deter the production of other material, including cartoons, that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".
In a landmark finding, Justice Michael Adams today upheld a magistrate's decision convicting a man of possessing child pornography after the cartoons - depicting characters modelled on Bart, Lisa and Maggie engaging in sex acts - were found on his computer.
The main issue of the case was whether a fictional cartoon character could "depict" a "person" under law.
Alan John McEwan had been convicted in the Parramatta Local Court of possessing child pornography and of using a carriage service to access child pornography material, the latter of which has a maximum penalty of 10 years' jail.
The male figures in the cartoons had what appeared to be human genitalia, as did the mother and the girl depicted in the cartoons.
The magistrate said that, had the images involved real children, McEwan would have been jailed.
However, he was fined $3000 and required to enter into a two-year good behaviour bond in respect to each of the charges.
McEwan appealed against the decision, arguing that fictional cartoon characters could not be considered people as they "plainly and deliberately" departed from the human form.
"If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted," Justice Adams said in his judgment. "Their creation would constitute crimes at the very highest end of the criminal calendar."
But Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate. He found that, while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.
Justice Adams said the purpose of the legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of "real" children are depicted.
However it was also to deter the production of other material, including cartoons, that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".
yuck!
why not someone closer to ur own age
zombie omie jay
Banned
well that is kind of the premise of the thread you cunt
we are older than 16
but would you still fuck one
given that we are older
but it is still perfectly legal
even if we were 50
we are older than 16
but would you still fuck one
given that we are older
but it is still perfectly legal
even if we were 50
Riet
Tomcat Pilot
my gf is 19, it was just a hypothetical. Like if there was some stacks hot girl but then she was like: "I'm 16, lol!"
meeatu
Member
Oh! you filthy fag
*cuddles*
And you're (excuse the french) fucking ignorant
Always been one for closing your eyes and pretending it doesn't happen?
But hey, it works for ostriches, right?
"Contrary to popular belief, Ostriches do not bury their heads in sand." - Wikipedia
oh well... never mind then
Get over it.
Loveisloveisloveislove
Carcinogen
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 0
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2010
I generally go by the your age/2 + 7 creepy sex rule, but it bends. In this case, you'd be out, but not by much.
Carrotsticks
Retired
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 9,494
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
ask this same question of 4chan and see what happens.
countnigel
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 7
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2010
16's too old for my taste...
adriano_negr0
Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 194
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2011
but u go to James Ruse so your probs craving female interaction
Crestwood's_G
In Elegance
12 is my maximum...
truthfully...16 yr olds are dirty...so are most teenagers...i see schoolgirls yr 12...and they just look so young...
Crestwood's_G
In Elegance
hahahaha
pman
Banned
can't see why not....16 is an awesome age
housah0lic
Dr Greenthumb
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,639
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 1999
hey wait are you townie's bfOh! you filthy fag
*cuddles*
And you're (excuse the french) fucking ignorant
Always been one for closing your eyes and pretending it doesn't happen?
But hey, it works for ostriches, right?
"Contrary to popular belief, Ostriches do not bury their heads in sand." - Wikipedia
oh well... never mind then
Get over it.
Loveisloveisloveislove