Quote: Leevil @ December 24 2009, 4:23 PM GMTMerry Christmas!
And a happy new year! 
Quote: Nogget @ December 24 2009, 4:27 PM GMTSo you expect to talk a lot less sense in five years time?
Oh yes.
Who do you fancy? Page 519
Quote: Ming the Mirthless @ December 24 2009, 3:48 PM GMTI'd be unlikely to seek out a 13-year-old stranger for chat (online or off) but I'm very sure of one thing - your average 13-year-old talks a lot more sense than your average 18-year-old.
I'm pretty sure I spoke a lot of sense at both ages, although I can at least get my head around it to type proper words online now...And have done so since I was about 16 I would say, and Aaron told me off. >_<
In any case, it is often the case that people of all ages have a tendency to act childish sometimes, (though I'm not going to refer to any specific sitations, obviously) and this conversation about age is starting to annoy me now because it makes me feel like I've sort of only just become accepted now that I'm 18. I know some topics are adult, and they shouldn't have to stop, but I was more offended at 16 and 18 when jokes about whether I was now "Fair game" cropped up than I was about any other content I'd encountered previously. Bed-time for all this now, please?
Anyway, rant over! Back to poetry.
Kate Winslet in 'Eternal Sunshine Of the Spotless Mind'.
As long as all participants in a chat or message thread are operating within the law, it's for each person to decide which topics he/she is willing or unwilling to chat about. It's also for each person to decide which other persons he/she is willing or unwilling to discuss those topics with.
The law in Britain sets the age of consent for girls at 16 but, in very-civilised Canada, it's only 14 so let's not delude ourselves that a great many perfectly decent respectable 13-year-old girls are not enjoying active, well-informed, consensual sex-lives all over the western world.
They are - and they're more than capable of discussing it soberly OR making jokes about it.
It's 2010 next week, not 1810.
Quote: Ming the Mirthless @ December 27 2009, 12:37 PM GMTAs long as all participants in a chat or message thread are operating within the law, it's for each person to decide which topics he/she is willing or unwilling to chat about. It's also for each person to decide which other persons he/she is willing or unwilling to discuss those topics with.
The law in Britain sets the age of consent for girls at 16 but, in very-civilised Canada, it's only 14 so let's not delude ourselves that a great many perfectly decent respectable 13-year-old girls are not enjoying active, well-informed, consensual sex-lives all over the western world.
They are - and they're more than capable of discussing it soberly OR making jokes about it.
It's 2010 next week, not 1810.
Yeah, but who do you fancy?
I didn't know it was 14 in Canada. That's quite surprising and odd. I still want to go though.
It's also reminded me I had a dream about Christopher Biggins last night in which we talked about going on holiday to Canada.
If you're reading Biggins, I'm in!
(As long as we avoid 14 year olds.)
Quote: Matthew Stott @ December 27 2009, 12:39 PM GMTYeah, but who do you fancy?
It's been a while since I've fancied a 13-year-old but I wouldn't say no to a bash at Rosie Webster from Corrie who, I believe, is a thoroughly legal 19 on the Street (and 20 in real life).
I know where she gets her looks from:
Re: Little kiddies talking about who they fancy on the BCG
Not to worry everyone, when I suggested this thread was about 'who would you most want to shag', I was severely admonished by both Aaron and zooo who assured me this thread was all about 'who you would most like to hold hands with' and nothing more.
So panic over. Speaking of the age of consent, Miley Cyrus is perfectly legal in this country, no wonder she spends so much time here, the dirty bitch.
?
Quote: zooo @ December 27 2009, 2:44 PM GMT?
Bottom of page 453 on this thread (after doing some extensive Morrace style research)
I said 'Who do you fancy?' is equatable to 'Who do you want to shag?' and I was met with the reply 'not necessarily' and was called simple minded. 
I was also attacked for saying that I didn't find the unattractive television gardener lady fanciable. Which was weird.
Ha, I remember that, it was more the suggestion that she shouldn't be allowed on telly if she wasn't sexy that was objectionable. 
Quote: zooo @ December 27 2009, 3:30 PM GMTHa, I remember that, it was more the suggestion that she shouldn't be allowed on telly if she wasn't sexy that was objectionable.
She can be on telly if she wants, but not BBC telly, as I have to pay for that by law.
I'm not having my tax money wasted on the ugly. The worst offenders are regional BBC news and News 24 presenters, which have some of the most unattractive reporters I've ever seen in my life.
It's doubley embarrassing whenever they have to go over to American corresspondents, who always look like they just left a Miss World contest. In comparison, the News 24 ming-bags look like they've been run over by the ugly bus inside Oxfam.
