>>11862399>is it that complexyes it is... I mean as long as we add to discussion like hebephilia, aephebophilia, age of consent, rapix developement of modern children due to clocked metabolism due to propper diets, sexuality that can bs observed as early as 6 years of age etc etc etc
bevause it isn't necessarily morally wrong to let paedophiles have their way wutb consenting young girls... or boys for that matter- but there is no foolproof method of discerning when concept of consent develops enough in each particular case of young boys and girls
by exposing them to risk you sre doing morally apprehensive acts but by standing between love and potrntial lovers is emphateticaly and simpathethicaly apprrhensive act
imagine if there was a dumbass law that holdd little to no logical ground between you and your milfs, it would make you furious, it woild make those who care for you sad and if would make those who don't care for you to apathethicaly remark with "just deal with if it freak, what you're doing isn't natural"; when in fact you're both products of nature and neither of your behaviors goes against previously existing natural responses
>>11862401>scars that badit would be pot calling kettle black if I did considering the number of cracks and holes the zits left, though I am talking sbout dermatological tragedies for lack of intervention here
>many of thosehere in Croatia yes, but you wouldn't know it as most wear some kind of makeup since 5th grade
>where I got thatI trued my way of posh sermon talk but I guess I didn't go far enough to make absurd claim of it absurd enough
>restrainfhajahahjahaha, from whom? christians? are ya havjng a laf there m8?!
