Post: #1

A radio host has been fired for 'sexually inappropriate' comments he made about Olympic gold medalist Chloe Kim.

On Tuesday, radio co-host Patrick Connor made comments during a discussion about the Games on Barstool Sports', "Dialed-In with Dallas Braden."

He then added: "She's fine as hell! If she was 18, you wouldn't be ashamed to say that she's a little hot piece of ass. And she is. She is adorable. I'm a huge Chloe Kim fan."

Yep, the word 'ass' will today get you fired on the spot.

Connor apologized to Kim (I guess, under pressures and to save his job, though in vain):

"I'm super embarrassed. [...]. It was pretty needy, and that's not a good look. And I've taken a pretty good beating and I effin deserve it. Don't feel sorry for me."

This is first page CNN News. That's how attitudes get re-trained. A triviality of a spicy compliment, turned 'sexually inappropriate' comment. Made On Air at some radio station. At the same time girls twerk buttocks in skimpy thongs on hundreds of TV channels because they... like it? The doublespeak and duplicity of XXI culture and social media look like pure craziness.

it's embarrassing to read Connor's prostrations akin him having caused the girl a grave harm of any kind. Ironically, privately, she probably felt flattered. His co-host Braden, instead of trying to defend him, repeatedly kicked him like a dog just to save his own ass in his commentary.

If it goes like this, in the next five years telling a girl she's attractive will earn you a spot on a sexual offenders list.

Post: #2

Dude she's underage at 17, title is a bit baity.

This is an adult, on a major radio station, talking about how hot an underage girl is.

Last I checked we ban men who talk about underage girls on here.

What do you expect to happen to a radio host in this #MeToo climate ?

Wasn't the smartest move on his part, and he was just talking like he was around the boys.

Post: #3

They guy could've at least said something not as sleazy...
Or how about not even talking about a underage girl like that in the first place.
Maybe talk about her talent in her event and her competition. Or where she grew up...
The guy is an idiot to think making sexual remarks about underage girls publicly is a smart choice.

Post: #4

Honestly in bad taste. Firing is a bit extreme but he definitely should be publicly reprimanded - not on any moral grounds - to save face for the radio station

Post: #5

"needy"

That probably wasn't the best word to go with, either.

Post: #6

I agree with the original poster's main point. Let's get some historical perspective.

A few years ago, gay marriage was illegal and considered immoral. Today it's celebrated. The opposite is true about underage girls.

Back in the 1960s, Beach Boy Brian Wilson was 22 when he married 17-year-old Marilyn Rovell. They started dating two years earlier with the blessing of her parents. Paul McCartney of the Beatles was 21 when he met Jane Asher, who had just turned 17. He moved in with her family within months.

Who is to say the '60s morals and laws were wrong and ours today are right?

Who is to say "Hey, ramming another guy up the butt should be celebrated, but Paul McCartney was immoral?" When looked at from a biological (as opposed to legal) perspective, the old ways made more sense. The girl is physically prepared to procreate while the two men can't.

So should we not be allowed to talk about two of pop music's greatest songwriters because they dated underage girls? They did a lot worse than the radio host. They slept with them.

Finally, the OP wasn't talking about an underage girl. He was talking about someone talking about an underage girl. There's a difference.

Post: #7

(02-15-2018 08:32 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Finally, the OP wasn't talking about an underage girl. He was talking about someone talking about an underage girl. There's a difference.

I understand the changing language and how it's being censored little by little.

Also, talking about people being banned on here for speaking about underage girls was an example, it wasn't telling KS to not post about a guy talking about underage girls.

Post: #8

One other thing:

Post: #9

If he was talking about Cindy Crawford's daughter he'd at least be right

Post: #10

(02-15-2018 08:32 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  I agree with the original poster's main point. Let's get some historical perspective.

A few years ago, gay marriage was illegal and considered immoral. Today it's celebrated. The opposite is true about underage girls.

Back in the 1960s, Beach Boy Brian Wilson was 22 when he married 17-year-old Marilyn Rovell. They started dating two years earlier with the blessing of her parents. Paul McCartney of the Beatles was 21 when he met Jane Asher, who had just turned 17. He moved in with her family within months.

Who is to say the '60s morals and laws were wrong and ours today are right?

Who is to say "Hey, ramming another guy up the butt should be celebrated, but Paul McCartney was immoral?" When looked at from a biological (as opposed to legal) perspective, the old ways made more sense. The girl is physically prepared to procreate while the two men can't.

So should we not be allowed to talk about two of pop music's greatest songwriters because they dated underage girls? They did a lot worse than the radio host. They slept with them.

Finally, the OP wasn't talking about an underage girl. He was talking about someone talking about an underage girl. There's a difference.

Actually people can decry homosexuality as degenerate and dating/fucking underage girls as degenerate at the same time.

Frankly I'm not sure what your argument is. How many number-one hits does a fella have to record before they get a pass on fucking a ten year old? Asking for a friend.

Picking up a girl at a Barney concert is not OK just because she's already growing tits. If a girl is physically/mentally ready at 15 years and 11 months then that's a real shame, but the laws exist to protect all the girls that aren't ready.

What are some more laws we're allowed to break if we're popular enough and the law doesn't make much sense anyway?

How about if I submit a short film at the sundance festival and win some awards? Can I punch some guy in the back of the head "because he was a dick anyway and probably deserved it?"

If I become a big player in the interpretive dance scene can I vote twice in an election "because I forgot to vote last time, so it more or less equals out"?

Law are laws. They do not suddenly become guidelines for people that happen to reach a certain social strata. Moreover the breaking of those laws does not suddenly become acceptable because people want to continue gushing over that person's artistic legacy without any niggling moral issues in the background.

Why can't these talented, rich celebrities find 16 year old girls rather than 15 year old ones? Are they hanging around high schools in panel vans and catching oneitis?

Post: #11

(02-16-2018 02:37 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Picking up a girl at a Barney concert is not OK just because she's already growing tits. If a girl is physically/mentally ready at 15 years and 11 months then that's a real shame, but the laws exist to protect all the girls that aren't ready.

I guarantee you, your work explaining real life on this board is going to get a lot easier once they develop CRISPR therapy for autism.

Post: #12

Seriously - that girl is 20 days away from 18 at which age speaking about her ass is fine? She can also work as hooker, stripper and do porn - in 20 days.

The old shitty stupid anti-male #metoo bullshit - welcome in the Feminazi Gulag of the West where a man cannot mention the obvious fact that a sexually mature girl is hot.

But women can do far more than that.

   

   

(By the way - comment to the supposedly anti-pedo board of the traitorous elite - that girl is 18. I get it - Podesta is a symbol of virtue and innocence while a man commenting on the ass of a 17.98 year old is a filthy disgusting pervert.)

Post: #13

This thread is the product of a war between the two hemispheres of the male brain.

The single guy hemisphere vs. The dad hemisphere.

It will not be resolved by internet discussion.

Post: #14

Looks like the poor guy who got fired had 80% chance to "make it" Too bad the radio station is based in San Francisco...



By the way, EU's member states age of consent shows more liberal attitude, for there is not a single country requiring 18 years of age.



US, comparatively, a bit prudish, eh?

Post: #15

(02-16-2018 02:37 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Law are laws.

Total tangent but...

Only if they are enforceable
and there are the resources to enforce them
and the cultural will to observe them

So in other words, not really.

I'm guessing what you meant was that it's easier to set a standard and then deal with the exceptions (which will now be much less, since the mass of people find it easier to operate when there is a clear standard), as they crop up.

Post: #16

Okay, guys.

Typical age of the first menstrual cycle in the US is 12.5 years of age.

Where I'm from that's first year high school or last year primary school.

Anyone who wants to bitch and moan about laws regarding the age of consent kindly put your money where your mouth is and either flat out state they want those laws abolished, knowing damn well the kind of abuses that would follow, or suggest an alternative law that I can have fun demolishing.

Post: #17

This is disgusting. We're not even allowed to say girls are hot anymore? They're living in a bubble if they don't think every American male that watches the Olympics isn't thinking this. Hell, in the Olympics thread on here, I've even said when Kim is 18, every guy is going to want to get with her that's into sports. She's a hot Asian-American athlete, that's a commodity in the US. I'm getting more and more disgusted by the metoo movement every day tbh.

For reference, the bigger issue at hand is calling a girl hot or beautiful is going to offensive territory for some. I watched a metoo documentary and one man (who is fucking castrated btw) say that it was a good thing that more young men surveyed thought that calling a girl beautiful was inappropriate and that older men thought that was fine.

Post: #18

(02-16-2018 11:05 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Okay, guys.

Typical age of the first menstrual cycle in the US is 12.5 years of age.

Where I'm from that's first year high school or last year primary school.

Anyone who wants to bitch and moan about laws regarding the age of consent kindly put your money where your mouth is and either flat out state they want those laws abolished, knowing damn well the kind of abuses that would follow, or suggest an alternative law that I can have fun demolishing.

Take a look at the European consent ages. Some of them had those since decades (or centuries) - and it did not result in deviant sexual behavior patterns.

Also most countries have laws that give the parents some kind of say before court. So if a 50yo guy fucks a 15yo girl in Poland, then this may be technically legal, but if the parents convince her of some kind of sexual coercion and back her up, then you are fucked. It's not word against word, but 3 against 1.

The laws as they exist there are not that bad. Take for example Japan with age of consent of 13. Of course that is too low for my taste since sexual maturity for women is later. But somehow this did not destroy the market place, since that age has been around forever. Teenage girls want to fuck mostly teenage boys - they consider a 25yo as super-old at that age and such contacts are rare.

Having consent laws of 18 is indeed a remnant of the prudish Protestant past. A reform is not as difficult - lower the age of consent, give parents some legal leeway so that older buggers think twice before seduction and be done with it.

Now the feminist media are the new prudes who come down hard on anyone even remotely showing any kind of sexual thought towards any young woman. But you are encouraged to show sexual enthusiasm towards old, fat and ugly women.

Post: #19

I think they want to make it so that expressing any masculinity is "toxic masculinity".

Post: #20

I'm fairly sure Roosh made a forum rule not to discuss AoC or underage females at all.
Or have these types of discussions.

Quote:7. Do not post about the following: jailbait girls, illegal crimes, p4p, gore, scat, NSFW images, or images of girls you know.

Post: #21

(02-17-2018 05:37 AM)kinjutsu Wrote:  I'm fairly sure Roosh made a forum rule not to discuss AoC or underage females at all.
Or have these types of discussions.

Quote:7. Do not post about the following: jailbait girls, illegal crimes, p4p, gore, scat, NSFW images, or images of girls you know.

The girl I posted was 18.

And the jailbait girl of a Olympic athlete should perform in a burka.

Post: #22

(02-17-2018 05:56 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(02-17-2018 05:37 AM)kinjutsu Wrote:  I'm fairly sure Roosh made a forum rule not to discuss AoC or underage females at all.
Or have these types of discussions.

Quote:7. Do not post about the following: jailbait girls, illegal crimes, p4p, gore, scat, NSFW images, or images of girls you know.

The girl I posted was 18.

And the jailbait girl of a Olympic athlete should perform in a burka.

That was directed towards the posting of the US and europe age of consent maps.

Post: #23

(delete)

Thanks, Repo.

Post: #24

Yeah Rob you would be mistaken.

Post: #25

Repo, as you can see, I deleted my post above.

So are we really not allowed to discuss the concept of modern-day "age of consent" laws? It seems like it would be relevant to red-pill ideas to be able to discuss how people in the past (in patriarchal societies) would get married younger than they do today. I mean, this is a historical fact. Are you sure that we're not allowed to discuss these aspects of history on the forum?

Again, I deleted my previous post because I don't want to break the rules. I just want some clarification on this.