They EXPOSE Themselves.. š¤Øš”
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (38)
sorted by:
Teens will experiment and make mistakes.. But when an ADULT is involved !! They are pushing to Normalize Sexual contact not between minors, but WITH MINORS!! Wake up Parents !!
I believe that even teens shouldn't be messing around because promiscuity in our culture has really led to terrible things. Teen pregnancy rates, teen abortion rates, teens with STDs, then they grow into adults who have no respect for sex or what it creates, only that it gives them easy pleasure.
I guess I'm one of those crazy people that believes that such a serious and powerful thing (it creates new souls after all) should be treated with more respect and dignity, and you should really try to keep it between you and your spouse. That's how God intended it to be and I believe He's right. He knows best after all.
Of course, ideally that shouldn't happen so often.
What should never happen though is an adult and a minor, and I'm not talking about fringe Romeo and Juliet law cases either like leftists will try to use to defend themselves.
One thing is for sure though: The harder you try to restrict something, the more forbidden it is, the more attractive it becomes. Literally Adam and Eve shit there.
We need a change in culture and to pull back on the sexualization from all fronts at all ages. It has gone way too far, as many knew it would.
The peak bullshit is probably about the time Cuties happened.
Anyone who can watch that movie without feeling incredibly uncomfortable and distressed is a concern. Yet leftists still defend it.
While restricting certain things can make it enticing to some people, most people will avoid it because of the ramifications or punishments that may ensue, or they just straight up know it's wrong. If Adam and Eve had really known what would happen when they ate the forbidden fruit they probably wouldn't have done it.
Restricting abortion for example will reduce abortion numbers because most women or girls will find it too hard to get one, too expensive to travel to another state, or maybe knowing that it's illegal will make them realize it's wrong and they'll actually choose life.
Restricting sex between teenagers or any unmarried people was never a law in the past, but it was extremely taboo and frowned upon, and in fact you would be shamed for it. That sort of ostracizing kept the majority of people from committing that act, and that's what we need again today.
What you say is Not crazy at all.. this is what needs to be taught at home and in the classroom.. that reality creates even more of an exclamation point as to why this Woman, ( forgive me for making that assumption as biology wasnāt my majorš) and what she says, is even More Twisted and Revealing !!
Thanks fren, I know it's not really crazy, but there are even some people here on GAW that believe that flippant sex is A-OK as long as it's with some hot person. Self control is what's needed in this decadent and selfish society.
Since when is posting facts about state legislation considered an endorsement of said legislation?
I could post that it's legal under current California state law to conceal your HIV status (fact), but that doesn't mean I agree with said law.
But she said "Minors actually can consent to sex" and then referenced said laws as proof, as if this makes it okay for old perverts to have sex with children.
That's not what she's doing. She is using laws (that vary from state to state) to say something is a fact.
The way she is framing it is an endorsement. The subtext that is present and the subtext that is missing shows that.
Had she said something along the lines of, "The laws in these states state that they can consent. Maybe we should change that" then it would change things.
The absence of that -- or similar statement -- and the "ACKCHUALLY" response, which is always used as an attempt to shut down an argument -- is all the proof needed.
Matthew 18:6 She's doomed.
and Matthew 18:6 happens to be part of the Q-Source, how many coincidences...
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html
Is that a legit list gospel called Q?
it's the common material between Matthew and Luke. and theologians came up with the name Q, which means Quelle/Source in German. there are quite a few books & videos which try to debunk the idea, but once you read it, you know it's related to our Q. you can even use the outlines with your own Bible. I read through everytime I have a dilemma & seems like there's always an answer among the verses; very practical like DJT.
What is the point of referring to them as Minors if you believe they have full agency and authority? If they are just smaller adults seems discriminatory to refer to them as minors. Predators gonna prey. I don't care what you are attracted to... if you plan on spoiling anyone's innocence you are wrong and evil.
Exactly
Well, in this instance I do care what they're attracted to. But it takes a special kind of evil to act on it. And also a special kind of evil to ever justify or defend it.
You have to be really dumb to even think this, laws or not
Let alone say it in writing...
Good old fashioned hubris
Activity between minors is different and also a different argument than the overall sphere.
I don't think most people are going to try and say that two teens being stupid deserve to go to prison as predators or something.
When anyone says "minors can't consent", literally no one is referring to the peers within their age group. Everyone is referencing adult child predators who have no business hanging around children.
So they can't vote, skip school, or own a gun, but they can pro-create. Got it!
I mean, sheās not technically wrong. I think the age of consent in Missouri is still 16, but I think that might only be for other 16 or 17 year olds. Iām pretty sure itās still a crime for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old.
She is a pedo sexual tourist.
How is this fuking demon still stealing our oxygen?
Minors by the actual definition, Cannot consent to sex or medical treatment or surgeries.
Yeah, they can consent, WITH OTHER MINORS. THAT is the exception, typically.
Consent starts post pubescence. Prepubescent children cannot consent.
Who TF finds a child sexually attractive? Pedos, thatās who. I donāt care if āminors can consentā. Healthy adults want nothing to do with kids or teens.
Well... Yeah they can. 16 and 17 year old guys and gals have been parking and getting busy in the back seat since WE'LL BEFORE I was born. Hay lofts, forests, by the brook, behind the barn, under the bleachers - you name it, teenagers have likely banged each other on, in, under, or adjacent to nearly every place, structure, vehicle, etc that is accessible to them.
That is what it is. Humans being human. For good or ill, it happens. It's always happened. It will continue to happen.
But some middle aged perv thinks a 13yo can consent? That is not only fucked up, if it's MY kid that's grounds for my brothers and I to engage in extraordinary rendition, summary execution and corpse disposal. Just sayin'.
They must have though saying that would go over more smoothly if a woman said it.
shower thought... did I only screen shot that so if the world turns to mad Maxx scenario, I will know who to leave rotting?
33 pedos retweeted. Unreal!
Lol. Seriously? How do you know those retweets aren't just quotes with people posting rebuttals?
The "likes" is a more accurate metric.
I was trying to be funny, but you make a great point. I forgot the retweet count includes retweets with comments.
There is an argument to be made post pubescence, but there is wisdom in keeping certain age restrictions in place. However, 18 year olds should not be punished for having 14 or 15 y/o SOs. That's a four year difference in the grand scheme. And we need to soft start adulthood at 13. Retarding our youths five years was a huge mistake. 13-18 should be trade school education and if teens can prove themselves responsible should be able to "apply for adulthood" regardless of age.
I speak looking back at my own youth and how fucking retarded this current system is. If I had been established at 14 or 15, taken a wife, I would have likely had kids and potentially been an empty nest before 30... If we also introduce beer and wine at 12 and hard liquor by 16, most of this country's drinking problem would be solved...
Prepubescents cannot consent. End of discussion.
After having kids and raising them to adulthood, this is retarded. Yes, start trade schools around that age. But the choice to have sex and create a life is too big of a choice for most even past 21.