<p>“Really, nothing? Oh wait, what about the fact that this was a 15-year old kid? One would think that would be a pretty damn good point. You see the difference between creepy naked guy and immature naked teenager?”</p>
<p>Sure, sure. I’m sorry. The fact that it’s a 15-year old kid isn’t relevant. In fact, the father should have realized that his age made it normal and acceptable to sneak into his home and get naked at 4 in the morning. My mistake!</p>
<p>“Are you sure you read the article? You keep stressing this “man” part. Which is wrong.”</p>
<p>Uh, the kid was naked and taking part in mature activities, i.e. sex. It’s not as if he sneaked in to play house with the daughter. So in this case, I find absolutely no problem with referring to him as a “man.” </p>
<p>However, I take by your last post that you have given up trying to support your position, because you haven’t explained why it matters that the kid was 15 versus, say 17. Or 18. From the perspective of the father, that is. Or maybe he should have inquired about his age? That seems to be within your line of reasoning.</p>