ATTN: California Girls

Bunny · 07-18-2006, 07:25 PM

In the summer of 2006, something is going down on the West Coast. More specifically, in the City of Angels: Los Angeles. And even more specifically, in Late August about the 25th or so. There are more than a few girls from California on this forum, and I would like to extend an offer to you all, well, not everyone. Just the attractive ones.

You see, I have been invited to a wedding. My first wedding. I am also the prospective best man, and that means that I will be awesome. You can rest assured that I will "bring on the funk, bring on the noise" to said wedding, regardless of rules and regulations. I can promise to all parties involved an absolutely excellent time. So, anyway, if you are interested please follow the steps labeled as "Steps To Being Great" that are listed below:

Steps To Being Great:
1. Be attractive. Now, I am really god damn hot, so I need a girl of equal or greater hotness value on my arm for an event that will prove to be glamorous. If you think yourself of the description, please PM me a picture of yourself with the following sign: "Bunny is my hero; I want to ride his carrot."

2. 18-22(and really hot 16-17) year olds only. If you are a, like, 23-years-old and have a body like whoa, I might make an exception. But those are the ages I am mainly looking for.

3. Have decency, respect, and morals. And also: sex with me. I understand if you don't wanna be crazy and let me in the backdoor; that's alright. But by all that is holy and special, I am having sex with somethin' human that night/weekend.

4. Be able to drive. I don't drive, because I am above it(plus the law says I need a card). Naturally, I need someone who can drive me around to all the places I want to go(which mainly amounts to the hotel room[where we will have amazing sex] and possibly the area of the wedding if I remember it[sex is awesome])

5. Lesbians welcome. But only if I get to touch both sets of boobies at the same time. ;D? ;D?

6. You have to be able to get yourself to where ever the wedding is being held(more information on that when I get responses). After you get yourself there, I will pretty much pay for anything you want/need. Because in addition to being a fantastic piece of ass and a great lay, I am also incredibly well off in the money area. So yeah, I will buy you pretty things in exchange for sex.

Those are the requirements to be my date for the evening/weekend. If you are an interested (and hot) person, please PM/IM me and we will talk details and such.
If you are not interested, go to hell because you are missing out on the best night/weekend of your entire life/year.

P.S. Yes, I am actually very serious about the majority of this post. There is a wedding and I will be the best man. I am fine with meeting strange people over the internet for the first time; I am crazy like that.

*Chez Daja* · 07-18-2006, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunny

"Bunny is my hero; I want to ride his carrot."

...

....Hahahaha!!

Ahem. Sorry. Carrot. Haha. Anyway. 16/17, wha? You pedophile. Stop chasing children around, jeez. I know you like the kids, but really. It's against the law. In any case, this thread as well as my post is... pointless. Yay?

Lover Boy · 07-19-2006, 03:58 AM

Actually, California's age of consent is 16, thus making it legal for anyone 16-18 to have sex with someone up to the age of 25.

Seeing that said age gap is legal when it comes to the art of ****in', saying that someone 16/17 is any less worthy of Alex's penis really is discriminitory to anyone under 18.

And as someone under the age of 18, I am offended. While I may not be a prospective **** buddy for someone from the internet, (....hahahahahaha) Chez is still ignores my right to have sex with 25 year old women, which offends me as a person.

You madam are ignoring my RIGHTS. Never should have let you bitches vote.

Anyway, don't worry about Alex. I mean the whole "him actually wanting sex part". Unless you want to bone him. Because in actuality, he could always just hook up with any of the other countless women there.

Why?

I will be talking into an earplug that he will be wearing.

THATS RIGHT. SITCOM CLICHE #496 WILL BE ACTIVATED AT THIS WEDDING.

EDIT: J/K, California's age of consent is 18, Alex is a dirty little sexpot who deserves to be jailed and raped.

Unless he's in Iceland. Then it's just a matter of seeing how many 14 year old girls you can **** before your flight leaves.

*Chez Daja* · 07-19-2006, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lover Boy

Actually, California's age of consent is 16, thus making it legal for anyone 16-18 to have sex with someone up to the age of 25.

Damn...He's not the pedophile I hoped him to be. I was going to get him arrested by the sex police for the whole Hisari thing but now that seems less fun as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lover Boy

And as someone under the age of 18, I am offended. While I may not be a prospective **** buddy for someone from the internet, (....hahahahahaha) Chez is still ignores my right to have sex with 25 year old women, which offends me as a person.

I am sorry. ;_; . I shall go back to the task of making a sex shrine for TFF...it's like a stalker-type shrine, except not.

Quote:

EDIT: J/K, California's age of consent is 18, Alex is a dirty little sexpot who deserves to be jailed and raped.

I apologised for nothing? I feel almost violated.

Iceland has a consent age of 14? I heard there Japan was 12. That's got to be the sickest thing I have ever heard.

Autumn · 07-19-2006, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chez Daja

I heard there Japan was 12. That's got to be the sickest thing I have ever heard.

And with that comment it's time for me to enter the thread promoting ultra-liberalism.

It may be "sick" but if a 12 year old girl wants to have sex with a 60 year old man, then that's fine as long as both parties are consenting and understand the consequences of their actions. I don't see a problem with such a law. I'll also put in this post something else I've posted up in another thread before:

Arbitrarily selected levels of anything are nearly impossible to avoid, without running into serious problems. My ultra-liberal friend was attacking my stance on drugs, sex, selling rights etc., which I know to be logically flawed. For those who don't know, I hold a very liberal attitude in many areas and a great belief in the power of contracts. However, before I'd allow a person to, for example, legally purchase drugs, sell their body or voluntarily enter into slavery I'd require them to be educated to a certain level of information so they are aware of the consequences and are making an informed choice. This level would therefore be arbitrarily decided by me and advisers, although not naively nor randomly, which is important to keep in mind. For saying I would make these arbitrary choices I came under renewed attack. Not only would I educate people to an arbitrary level of information but I'd also be making an arbitrary choice in the areas which people would need a qualification for! "Why not require a qualification for being informed about the dangers of eating ham past the sell by date?" I was asked.

NB: The qualifications would be fairly difficult to obtain and it would be unlikely younger members of society would be able to attain them. The difficulty would be set for around the intelligence level of the average 17 year old. Citizens would be able to be tested for the qualification certificate at any stage of their life.

"If someone wants to make an uninformed choice then that is their right." Maybe so, but there isn't a choice. If you are uninformed then you can only make an uninformed decision whereas if you have been informed you can only make an informed decision. I'd rather have the latter than the former. Yes, people make plenty of uninformed choices in their life time and I wouldn't propose the state forces a qualification to be obtained in some of them. However, the cases where the state does force a qualification to be obtained would be the arbitrarily selected set of activites and deemed to be more important than other activites where a "line" has been drawn at an arbitrary point so there is less of the "slippery slope" problem. A lot of paper wasted? More later.

We deal with imperfect information (instances of asymmetrical information) in many transactions, especially when purchasing expensive second hand goods, like houses and cars. Alright, monetary loss can be damaging to a lifestyle, but I believe that people are educated about avoiding large monetary losses on 'big ticket' items through life experience and when most people get to the point of buying a house, car or other expensive good they are likely to check the good thoroughly to minimize risks. However, I do think a five year old should be protected from having sex with a 60 year old if the five year old is uninformed. I posed the scenario to my friend: "A 60 year old man offers a five year old girl a chocolate bar in exchange for sex. Because the girl wants the chocolate she might say yes, not realizing what she is agreeing to because she is uninformed." His reply: "She agreed to the transaction, and since sex would be illegal by default, there would need to be three witnesses from both parties to sign a contractual agreement. Once done, even though she is uninformed it's fine because she wants to carry out the exchange. She would quickly learn." Just like the mentally unfit would be protected from entering such transactions by the state, uninformed citizens would be too with regards to issues where informed numbers would be low if it weren't for a complusory state education before legal participation.

He said he would make sex illegal by default because I forced him into admitting he'd otherwise have to make arbitrary decisions. Initially, he claimed that certain activities should not require three witnesses, such as people looking for one night stands. However, how does the state decide which activites to allow "relaxed" contracts to be used in? The commonly performed tasks by the public? How is commonly defined? A large amount? An arbitrarily large amount? And in his view arbitrary = always bad. I'd make it law that all contracts must have three witnesses from both parties, these witnesses cannot be passers-by and must personally know the parties involved and of course, witnesses would have to supply an address and contact details so they can be traced. This would prevent, for example, seven slavers going around seizing people and then signing contracts that stated the seized would have to be a slave.

I've always thought not changing your mind when faced with a wholly logical argument that refutes your beliefs is foolish, yet I am guilty myself. I can't escape making arbitrary selections even though doing things arbitrarily is logically unsound. The alternatives of not being arbitrary are perceived by me to be worse, so I choose the lesser of many evils.

I quickly re-read it and it sounds terribly unorganized, but I don't suppose it matters much since roughly 0 people at TFF read these long posts of mine.

EDIT: I must write a clarification for a previous statement. Where I wrote: "...as both parties are consenting and understand the consequences of their actions. I don't see a problem with such a law." The law I am referring to is in fact the one I describe in my short essay and to which I allude to in my sentence; and not the current law in Japan if the age of consent is indeed 12 years old; as I believe Japan does not operate with the same informed decision making scheme that I propose.

Also, isn't the age of consent 12 years old in Holland? If it is then just imagine I wrote Holland everytime instead of Japan in my post.

Yuki-onna · 07-19-2006, 05:56 AM

"Bunny is my hero; I want to ride his carrot."

*choke* *die* HAHA!!

I had to punch myself in the tits to stop laughing about that one.

Sure man. I'll fly over there to experience your carrot.

*dies*

Winter: Yes. The age in Holland is 12. Due to pedophilic government. But basically you can have sex with any child of any age as long as you complain about having mental problems. Welcome to phallic heaven.

*Chez Daja* · 07-19-2006, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariko

The age in Holland is 12. Due to pedophilic government. But basically you can have sex with any child of any age as long as you complain about having mental problems. Welcome to phallic heaven.

I love you, girl. Lets get married. Again.

Seriously. Hell, lets pick up some 12 year old girls, too. Oh god. I almost pissed myself at your statement. Seriously. I love you.

I'm pretty happy with Englands' 16 thing, although I think it'd be better to be able to have sex after 18, that'd mean having to change a bunch of British laws. Still though.

Bunny, ride your own carrot, you penis freak.

Angantyr · 07-19-2006, 06:09 AM

This is why you are on my respect list Bunny!

You feed them that carrot and I'll feed them mine shiny icicles!

Also the Legal age in NZ is 16 and the Netherlands have a lot of Liberal Pedophilles. Too bad the girl I am about to hook up with is 15

... I suppose I could wait to October...

Bunny · 07-19-2006, 06:12 AM

He was right when he said that this would be taken in an unserious fashion, but I still await for a person that is offended by my disregard for equality or some bullshit like that.

I'd like to tell you all to shut up. I really would, seeing as you guys are posting extraordinarily off-topic posts in a topic that is not discussing the benefits of having sex with underage preteens, or discussing how sick and twisted a certain country's government is. While I do appreciate people finding my posts hilarious, I'd much rather people post relevant things in this topic, rather than off-topic bullshit that will only result in this thread getting closed/deleted/me warned.

Honestly, people. Use your head.

Also, Mariko: You pay for the flight and I repay you thirtyfold with lots of pretty things. I may even take you to a movie if there is time between all the awesome sex and wedding stuff. Come oooon.

To Repeat:
We are not discussing age of consent laws. Create your own damn thread if you want to discuss that rights and wrongs of such a topic. This is about me meeting pretty girls over the internet; not about your opinions on a stupid matter like preteen/old man sex.

Yuki-onna · 07-19-2006, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunny

Also, Mariko: You pay for the flight and I repay you thirtyfold with lots of pretty things. I may even take you to a movie if there is time between all the awesome sex and wedding stuff. Come oooon.[/b]

Like...like shiny things that distract me from all thought and self purpose? ...shiny? And a movie with blood and gore where we'll end up having sex anyway because that turns me on?

...shiny?

Bunny · 07-19-2006, 06:17 AM

Whatever floats your boat. I am not above paying for sex nor begging people to come hang out with me for a weekend. The seriousness of this offer and thread both confuses and astounds me.

Very shiny.

Yuki-onna · 07-19-2006, 06:23 AM

Yay! Purpose of my life! Shiny @_@

August? Sex? Shiny?

That's a nice piece of ASS.

Autumn · 07-19-2006, 06:37 AM

I apologize for the off-topic post. To make up for it I'll give you some advice:

Track down Relm.

She's within your age range, lives in California, pretty enough and can drive. I'm not sure about the other criteria though. Unfortunately, I haven't seen her at TFF for quite a while.

**OceanEyes28** · 07-19-2006, 01:20 PM

Winter, thank you for being, I think, the first person to actually say something useful to Alex in this thread. Everyone else, watch the off-topic posting. I will close this thread and probably warn people if the off-topic stuff continues. No more talking about legal age things.

Alex, this is a weird thread. I don't even know what to do with it. So I'll leave it open for now and watch it, I guess.

And see, if you had previously met my parents, I could even go with you. It's mid-August when I have nothing to do because everyone else is in college and I'm still waiting for September. It's more a matter of my parents being like, "Who the hell?"

Also, I would not have