GirlChat #602946
Whether you love them or not, kids aren't for diddling.
"If not harmful, the act(s) are explained to them on their level etc., I disagree. And, if both agree." Note also the passive sexist construct. Its an obvious holdover from the "lie back and think of England" cr*p that assumes that females have no active role in sex because they have no agency or desire. What kids are "for" is entirely up to them. From the perspective of anyone on this forum kids aren't FOR any action the kid may choose. And the "for diddling" concept is the same repugnant "available supply" concept that colors Ethan's thinking too. Anyone willing to seriously claim that kids are "for" something or "supply" something to others cannot call themself a GLer. What we have here are reactionaries who have swallowed the anti-sex misogynistic playbook of the religious zealot in its entirety and have tried their best to secularize the rationales while still not questioning the arguments or the agenda. But it takes more than a few word-substitutions for arguments invented to perpetrate the need to control female sexuality to cease doing just what they were designed to. Only now we start in on them from birth rather than waiting a little while. Dante |