On Apr 13, 2:19 pm, good...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> The difference between child rape and child consentual *** is the
> difference between night and day. While rape is the worst thing in
> the world, *** is the the best thing in the world. Some pedophiles
> love children and have consentual giving *** with them. Some rapists,
> force children and brutally rape and terrorize them. The difference
> is as distinct as the difference between rape and *** is in adults.
> Rape is one of the worst things in the world. *** is one of the best
> things in the world. In between the two is date (like) rape. ***
> with children should be legal at any age if it is consentual. Rape of
> people should be illegal at any age.
>
> Sometimes minors may think that adults are a sort of authority and
> that they have to obey. Given this can be the case, perhaps a
> requirement for any sort of ***ual activity between adults and minors
> should be that the adult has to first tell the child they have an
> unalienable right to say no. Without this distinction we could have
> forced *** P.E. in school, where kids were forced to have *** during
> P.E. or get "F's." Right now kids are forced to play dodge ball or
> get "F's" but if you throw a dodge ball at someone on the street, you
> may be charged with assault. So if a requirement for adult-child ***
> was that the children were uncoerced and informed of their right to
> say "no," then there could be no forced *** P.E., for isn't such
> forcing like rape? Nevertheless, we could still have _optional_ ***
> P.E. for the children where they are informed of their constant right
> to say "no" and stop any ***ual activity at any time with no
> consequences. Otherwise *** becomes like any other s****t which
> children are currently FORCED to play. But in the case of ***, how is
> this any different than rape?
>
> Seehttp://www.wikisposure.comandhttp://www.silentlambs.comfor
a
> myriad of interage ***ual re****ts from which one can discern the
> extreme differences between the two types of activities of loving
> giving *** and brutal terrorizing rape of minors.
>
> Oh, and child **** is freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.
> Such censor****p is damaging as we need to know what is going on out
> there, we need to be free thinkers and see whatever we choose. Only
> the producers of child **** should get jacked and only if they are
> FORCING children to do ***ual things. If you are specifically paying
> someone to committ a crime and this can be proven, you are an
> accessory to a crime. But buying copies of pictures after the fact
> does not make you a criminal in my book.
>
> I for one am not a pedophile or a homo***ual and have no special
> interest in minors, but I honestly don't see why I should care what
> age a person is, and I think consentual loving *** is a positive and
> healthy thing for everybody of all ages. I also do not think that it
> should be up to a child's parents if it is legal for them to have ***
> or not. If an adult has *** with a minor that should be legal, but
> the parents only recourse should be to easily get a restraining order
> keeping anyone over the age of 18 away from their children. This goes
> even they didn't have ***. So if you daughter is dating some bad
> influence biker boyfriend over the age of 18 you should be able to
> just get a restraining order. If the restraining order is broken by
> the adult the penalties should be as follows: 1st offense: 2 days in
> jail. 2nd offense: 2 weeks in jail. 3rd offense: 2 months in jail,
> 4th and all subsequent offenses: 6 months in jail. Of course, this
> would be if jail were a safe place and not somewhere where any petty
> criminal might die.
>
> Everyone having *** where pregnancy is possible should use two forms
> of birth control, such as condoms and the pill or the pull-out method
> and condoms. With two forms of birth control it is safer than a
> vasectomy and there is no risk of pregnancy and thus it is not
> immoral. With 1 or 0 forms of birth control there is a risk of
> pregnancy and this makes it more immoral, but it depends on the number
> of times you have *** also. If it it just just a few times the risk
> is obviously less and one form of birth control might not be immoral,
> but if it is lots then you need two forms of birth control to be
> moral. Taking a risk with an unborn baby is bad to you and the
> potential baby. So use condoms and the pill or condoms and the pull-
> out method. Or the pill and the pull-out method. Or a diaphragm OR
> sponge AND condoms OR the pill OR the pull-out method. Then there's
> near no risk of pregnancy and you are moral.
>
> What if you just happened to love someone who was young? And if a kid
> doesn't want it, try again another day. Even if you're married,
> raping your wife is still a crime even if she'll **** you another day.
>
> No one should get married until age 18 unless they or their partner is
> pregnant and it has been ascertained by a competent third party such
> as a judge that they are making the choice of marriage of their own
> free will and being forced or unduly pressured into it. But this only
> stands for marriage recognized by the state. Trully marriage exists
> only the hearts and minds of the married people.
A child cannot give consent to anything he/she cannot understand.
|
