Anonymous wrote:![]()
If that came onto me, I'd hit it too!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It wasn't that long ago when it was acceptable to get married and have children shortly after puberty. This practice was accepted and condoned by governments and religions. Somehow over the years this practice migrated from being morally acceptable to being one of the most reprehensible crimes possible. Age of Consent was also much lower years ago. Delaware for example, where this incident occurred, the Age of Consent was 7 in 1895. Yes, only 7.
Strange how quickly morals can change.
Our society is slowly beginning to value children. That's why morals change.
Is it value children or more due to sex becoming more taboo? You can do all sorts of things to kids today that is legal. You can tickle them, you can kiss them, you can hug them, you can hold their hand, you can spank them, you can give them candy, ... But, if you touch them in on particular spot it's suddenly a terrible thing.
Why are these certain spots so much different than any other? Why are there such a taboo morals associated with them? What truly is the difference between this cheerleader sucking the 15 year old boys finger or toe and sucking his penis? Other than it being taboo?
my only response to you -
You are a sick mother fucker.
Maybe so, but why are you unwilling to answer the questions? Is it perhaps the case you don't have a logical response to correlate with your morals?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It wasn't that long ago when it was acceptable to get married and have children shortly after puberty. This practice was accepted and condoned by governments and religions. Somehow over the years this practice migrated from being morally acceptable to being one of the most reprehensible crimes possible. Age of Consent was also much lower years ago. Delaware for example, where this incident occurred, the Age of Consent was 7 in 1895. Yes, only 7.
Strange how quickly morals can change.
Our society is slowly beginning to value children. That's why morals change.
Is it value children or more due to sex becoming more taboo? You can do all sorts of things to kids today that is legal. You can tickle them, you can kiss them, you can hug them, you can hold their hand, you can spank them, you can give them candy, ... But, if you touch them in on particular spot it's suddenly a terrible thing.
Why are these certain spots so much different than any other? Why are there such a taboo morals associated with them? What truly is the difference between this cheerleader sucking the 15 year old boys finger or toe and sucking his penis? Other than it being taboo?
my only response to you -
You are a sick mother fucker.
Maybe so, but why are you unwilling to answer the questions? Is it perhaps the case you don't have a logical response to correlate with your morals?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It wasn't that long ago when it was acceptable to get married and have children shortly after puberty. This practice was accepted and condoned by governments and religions. Somehow over the years this practice migrated from being morally acceptable to being one of the most reprehensible crimes possible. Age of Consent was also much lower years ago. Delaware for example, where this incident occurred, the Age of Consent was 7 in 1895. Yes, only 7.
Strange how quickly morals can change.
Our society is slowly beginning to value children. That's why morals change.
Is it value children or more due to sex becoming more taboo? You can do all sorts of things to kids today that is legal. You can tickle them, you can kiss them, you can hug them, you can hold their hand, you can spank them, you can give them candy, ... But, if you touch them in on particular spot it's suddenly a terrible thing.
Why are these certain spots so much different than any other? Why are there such a taboo morals associated with them? What truly is the difference between this cheerleader sucking the 15 year old boys finger or toe and sucking his penis? Other than it being taboo?
my only response to you -
You are a sick mother fucker.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It wasn't that long ago when it was acceptable to get married and have children shortly after puberty. This practice was accepted and condoned by governments and religions. Somehow over the years this practice migrated from being morally acceptable to being one of the most reprehensible crimes possible. Age of Consent was also much lower years ago. Delaware for example, where this incident occurred, the Age of Consent was 7 in 1895. Yes, only 7.
Strange how quickly morals can change.
Our society is slowly beginning to value children. That's why morals change.
Is it value children or more due to sex becoming more taboo? You can do all sorts of things to kids today that is legal. You can tickle them, you can kiss them, you can hug them, you can hold their hand, you can spank them, you can give them candy, ... But, if you touch them in on particular spot it's suddenly a terrible thing.
Why are these certain spots so much different than any other? Why are there such a taboo morals associated with them? What truly is the difference between this cheerleader sucking the 15 year old boys finger or toe and sucking his penis? Other than it being taboo?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For those saying that there's nothing wrong with a 47 year old woman seducing a 15 year old boy, here's another way to think about it: Would you be ok if this happened to your son? Or, for those with daughters, would you want your teenage daughter to date this boy now?
That's just cruel. The boy was raped. So, you're saying he's damaged goods now and isn't "datable"? You're mean.
I thought they had oral sex. Is that considered rape? I thought it falls under "I did not have sex with that woman!" defense.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It wasn't that long ago when it was acceptable to get married and have children shortly after puberty. This practice was accepted and condoned by governments and religions. Somehow over the years this practice migrated from being morally acceptable to being one of the most reprehensible crimes possible. Age of Consent was also much lower years ago. Delaware for example, where this incident occurred, the Age of Consent was 7 in 1895. Yes, only 7.
Strange how quickly morals can change.
Our society is slowly beginning to value children. That's why morals change.
Is it value children or more due to sex becoming more taboo? You can do all sorts of things to kids today that is legal. You can tickle them, you can kiss them, you can hug them, you can hold their hand, you can spank them, you can give them candy, ... But, if you touch them in on particular spot it's suddenly a terrible thing.
Why are these certain spots so much different than any other? Why are there such a taboo morals associated with them? What truly is the difference between this cheerleader sucking the 15 year old boys finger or toe and sucking his penis? Other than it being taboo?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It wasn't that long ago when it was acceptable to get married and have children shortly after puberty. This practice was accepted and condoned by governments and religions. Somehow over the years this practice migrated from being morally acceptable to being one of the most reprehensible crimes possible. Age of Consent was also much lower years ago. Delaware for example, where this incident occurred, the Age of Consent was 7 in 1895. Yes, only 7.
Strange how quickly morals can change.
Our society is slowly beginning to value children. That's why morals change.
Is it value children or more due to sex becoming more taboo? You can do all sorts of things to kids today that is legal. You can tickle them, you can kiss them, you can hug them, you can hold their hand, you can spank them, you can give them candy, ... But, if you touch them in on particular spot it's suddenly a terrible thing.
Why are these certain spots so much different than any other? Why are there such a taboo morals associated with them? What truly is the difference between this cheerleader sucking the 15 year old boys finger or toe and sucking his penis? Other than it being taboo?
Anonymous wrote:A lot depends on the maturity of the teenager. All 15-16 year olds are not the same.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It wasn't that long ago when it was acceptable to get married and have children shortly after puberty. This practice was accepted and condoned by governments and religions. Somehow over the years this practice migrated from being morally acceptable to being one of the most reprehensible crimes possible. Age of Consent was also much lower years ago. Delaware for example, where this incident occurred, the Age of Consent was 7 in 1895. Yes, only 7.
Strange how quickly morals can change.
Our society is slowly beginning to value children. That's why morals change.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For those saying that there's nothing wrong with a 47 year old woman seducing a 15 year old boy, here's another way to think about it: Would you be ok if this happened to your son? Or, for those with daughters, would you want your teenage daughter to date this boy now?
That's just cruel. The boy was raped. So, you're saying he's damaged goods now and isn't "datable"? You're mean.