You defend the position that young girls wearing shorts like underwear isn't sexualization of young girls while claiming you support more modesty than most.
No, I made an argument over what is considered a child. I never said that dressing like that is acceptable.
> You defend the position that young girls wearing shorts like underwear isn't sexualization of young girls while claiming you support more modesty than most.
No, I made an argument over what is considered a child. I never said that dressing like that is acceptable.
I see. I would argue that a 15 year old is a child.
I see. I would argue that a 15 year old is a child.
If she can bare a child then she isn't a child.
If she can bare a child then she isn't a child.
I acknowledge where your coming from. But she still has the mind of a child. She sees the world as a child. This is why there is a physiologically, mental, and legal distinction in many such discussions.
You're not psychologically wrong. Mentally and in most cases, legally, they are children. Discussion with most <17 confirmed they are mentally children.
I acknowledge where your coming from. But she still has the mind of a child. She sees the world as a child. This is why there is a physiologically, mental, and legal distinction in many such discussions.
You're not psychologically wrong. Mentally and in most cases, legally, they are children. Discussion with most <17 confirmed they are mentally children.
(post is archived)