And exactly where did I say having an erection is the ONLY criteria?
Show me those exact words: "only criteria"
You very clearly said that, given an erection, all that matters is whether one willingly shoved that erection into a hole. These are your words, not mine. And words have meaning. If you don't like what you said, then don't blame me. Blame yourself.
"And what does that make you?" What are you? 12 years old?
I'm rubber you're glue...
And no, you don't have great biceps anymore than you are a Libertarian.
Thanks for informing me. What other misconceptions have I been laboring under?
But they can consent to an abortion and birth control pills without the parents being notified.
Well, except I never said that they can or should.
How did you get to be so stupid?
The whole point of the arousal and consent issue was the charge, which somehow got lost in the discussion and what I'm addressing, that the 17 year old student was "forced" into sex with the teacher. Forced over thirty times to be specific.
I hope that clears up why I think axvo is such a retard with no reasoning ability. He claims that a 17 year old can be force over thirty times, thirty fucking times, to have sex with the same women.
Except that's not what I claimed, and it's a silly move to suggest that I did, given that my posts are visible and everyone here can go back, read them and realize that
you are lying through your teeth.
I'll save you the trouble of looking up what I wrote: "
Whether one participates willingly isn't the question. Whether one can consent is." You then asked me whether a 17 year old can consent to sex, and I responded with: "
In jurisdictions where the age of consent is 17, yes. In states where the age of consent is 18, no." You said you weren't talking "legally" and I responded with "
Too bad, because that's the only context which matters in this instance."
Oh, and would you like some ketchup to go with your foot?
