The Agenda Being Pushed: the Normalization of Sex with Children

[Peatful]

Every person born in the west is already a child of the Illuminati.
They’ve already been indoctrinated since birth.

Yes. Banned.
But he can still read this:

Every person is born into sin, Einstein.
I dare you to seek The Way out.

 

[Adf]

Have you seen the LoL dolls they sell to children? They're child stripper and hooker dolls. I get a feeling of absolute disgust every time I see it, like how do parents buy that ***t? They're teaching their little kids it's okay to dress trashy and look like a whore. In my opinion, there is absolutely NO way this isn't done intentionally by pedophiles to brainwash children to dress trashy. There is definite pedo hands pulling the strings on these doll designs.

Lingerie on a childs doll.

These dolls are meant to be toddlers themselves. They're not small adult bodies like your typical barbie.

Also.. we don't have sex with people under 18 for the same reason we don't send people under 18 to go to war. They are children. Their brains are still developing, even if the body has finished growing. Even though our brains are still developing into our twenties, they are too young pre 18.

We must respect, cherish and protect our children, for they will carry on our legacy. A hard line has to be set when it comes to this, you can't just say "Oh their body is developed and they're having sexual urges so they're legal". There is no grey area allowed because the risk to vulnerable children is much too great. Anyone trying to convince anyone else there is a grey area on the subject, is either extremely brainwashed and thinking for the pedophile who has convinced you, or they themselves are pedophilic.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Also.. we don't have sex with people under 18 for the same reason we don't send people under 18 to go to war. They are children. Their brains are still developing, even if the body has finished growing. Even though our brains are still developing into our twenties, they are too young pre 18.

In the US, the minimum age to join the military is 17.

We must respect, cherish and protect our children, for they will carry on our legacy. A hard line has to be set when it comes to this, you can't just say "Oh their body is developed and they're having sexual urges so they're legal". There is no grey area allowed because the risk to vulnerable children is much too great. Anyone trying to convince anyone else there is a grey area on the subject, is either extremely brainwashed and thinking for the pedophile who has convinced you, or they themselves are pedophilic.

From a legal perspective, there is absolutely a grey area, as different countries and different states have different set ages of consent, and it can also depend on factors like the age of their partner. This is an objective fact you can verify by looking up various laws and codes. I know within the US, you can get married before you turn 18, usually with parental consent. In several states, 16 is the age of majority.

 

[Adf]

In the US, the minimum age to join the military is 17.

From a legal perspective, there is absolutely a grey area, as different countries and different states have different set ages of consent, and it can also depend on factors like the age of their partner. This is an objective fact you can verify by looking up various laws and codes. I know within the US, you can get married before you turn 18, usually with parental consent. In several states, 16 is the age of majority.

Yes you're completely correct. Sorry I should have been more specific with what I meant. Legally it's a grey area with varying legality in different states. Generally speaking, ethically, there should be zero grey area. And that should be represented with the legal system, but it isn't. It should be illegal, for the reasons I have stated. Why is the legal drinking age in America 21, or 18 in most other western countries? The brain is still young and growing, you don't want to ruin that growth with toxic alcohol. Alcohol is for adults to purchase, not children.

What is the legal age that a child no longer needs a guardian? Usually that's 18. That should be the legal age of consent in all western societies, no grey areas ethically and legally.

I understand it gets trivial when dealing with people who only have several months difference in age, but that can be worked around. For instance, they must not have more than a years difference in age.

What I was primarily meaning in my previous post, is that most of western society (at least from what I believe and perceive) shares the view that we should not be having sex with anyone under 18. And I was particularly directing my previous post toward the individuals who were arguing if a person has grown the body and the sexual desire, they should be legal.

I knew a woman who had serious mental health issues. She was fully developed, with large curves, DD+ by 11 years old. She was a terrified person by nature and didn't trust any men because ever since she was 11 years old, she had adult men constantly harass her. Even at her primary school while she was in uniform. She suffered constant sexual harassment and developed this absolute distrust and utter fear of all men, and it completely shaped her current personality. To my knowledge she didn't have sex with an adult while underage but she might have left that out if it was too painful for her.

It's a similar argument albeit perhaps no where near as severe, to abortion. Abortion is legally speaking a grey area because different states and countries have different laws on it. But at what point does a fetus gain consciousness? At what point does the child inside the womb count as a life, that aborting should be considered murder?

Legally, there are states and countries that allow full term abortion. Australia is one of them! It's disgusting. There should be zero grey area, laws should be universally strict on this in favor of protecting the child. We could learn one day that as soon as a child is conceived, they have consciousness. Just because we don't know if that's true or not does not mean we should pretend it's not, and be able to legally murder that child with no repercussion.

When the risks and consequences on the child's health and wellbeing are this severe, the law should not be grey, it should be universal. If a child is not old enough to legally purchase alcohol, it should also be illegal to have sex with them.

 

[Blossom]

Yes you're completely correct. Sorry I should have been more specific with what I meant. Legally it's a grey area with varying legality in different states. Generally speaking, ethically, there should be zero grey area. And that should be represented with the legal system, but it isn't. It should be illegal, for the reasons I have stated. Why is the legal drinking age in America 21, or 18 in most other western countries? The brain is still young and growing, you don't want to ruin that growth with toxic alcohol. Alcohol is for adults to purchase, not children.

What is the legal age that a child no longer needs a guardian? Usually that's 18. That should be the legal age of consent in all western societies, no grey areas ethically and legally.

I understand it gets trivial when dealing with people who only have several months difference in age, but that can be worked around. For instance, they must not have more than a years difference in age.

What I was primarily meaning in my previous post, is that most of western society (at least from what I believe and perceive) shares the view that we should not be having sex with anyone under 18. And I was particularly directing my previous post toward the individuals who were arguing if a person has grown the body and the sexual desire, they should be legal.

I knew a woman who had serious mental health issues. She was fully developed, with large curves, DD+ by 11 years old. She was a terrified person by nature and didn't trust any men because ever since she was 11 years old, she had adult men constantly harass her. Even at her primary school while she was in uniform. She suffered constant sexual harassment and developed this absolute distrust and utter fear of all men, and it completely shaped her current personality. To my knowledge she didn't have sex with an adult while underage but she might have left that out if it was too painful for her.

It's a similar argument albeit perhaps no where near as severe, to abortion. Abortion is legally speaking a grey area because different states and countries have different laws on it. But at what point does a fetus gain consciousness? At what point does the child inside the womb count as a life, that aborting should be considered murder?

Legally, there are states and countries that allow full term abortion. Australia is one of them! It's disgusting. There should be zero grey area, laws should be universally strict on this in favor of protecting the child. We could learn one day that as soon as a child is conceived, they have consciousness. Just because we don't know if that's true or not does not mean we should pretend it's not, and be able to legally murder that child with no repercussion.

When the risks and consequences on the child's health and wellbeing are this severe, the law should not be grey, it should be universal. If a child is not old enough to legally purchase alcohol, it should also be illegal to have sex with them.

100%

 

[tankasnowgod]

Yes you're completely correct. Sorry I should have been more specific with what I meant. Legally it's a grey area with varying legality in different states. Generally speaking, ethically, there should be zero grey area. And that should be represented with the legal system, but it isn't. It should be illegal, for the reasons I have stated. Why is the legal drinking age in America 21, or 18 in most other western countries? The brain is still young and growing, you don't want to ruin that growth with toxic alcohol. Alcohol is for adults to purchase, not children.

As far as alcohol regulations go, it's totally commercial in nature. You have to be 21 to BUY alcohol. In many states, you had to be 18 to buy tobacco. 17, as I mentioned, is the youngest to join the military. 16 used to be the age when you could get a driver's license in most states. These regulations were put in place by various levels of government for various reasons, and many have pointed out that it's odd that you can be thought of as responsible enough to go fight a war at 17, but not responsible enough to have a beer at a bar until 4 years later?

What is the legal age that a child no longer needs a guardian? Usually that's 18. That should be the legal age of consent in all western societies, no grey areas ethically and legally.

If you've ever read a legal treatise, you quickly learn that all sorts of hard to conceive of situations pop up. A good reason for a grey area in this matter is that teens date. Consider a scenario where a boy 18 years and 2 months old dates a girl 17 years and 10 months old. With a hard line, that situation could end up with the boy being labeled a sex offender for life (situations like this have even come up in some places). Even though in reality, they are basically the same age.

I understand it gets trivial when dealing with people who only have several months difference in age, but that can be worked around. For instance, they must not have more than a years difference in age.

Here, you are already making exceptions to your hard line. I agree, it's a logical exception, but this is why laws, codes and such are written various ways, in no uniform way at all. Different concerns and situations may have come up in the various places that wrote different laws or codes.

What I was primarily meaning in my previous post, is that most of western society (at least from what I believe and perceive) shares the view that we should not be having sex with anyone under 18. And I was particularly directing my previous post toward the individuals who were arguing if a person has grown the body and the sexual desire, they should be legal.

I always bristle a bit at phrases like "we should" in this context. Personally, I did not write any of the current laws or codes, nor was I consulted for my input one way or another.

I find it a bit odd that there does seem to be a "social consensus" around the age of 18, despite no legal consensus. It's a bit arbitrary. After all, if someone at 17 is mature enough to join the military, shouldn't they be mature enough to engage in relationships without state restrictions? On the flip side, it seems like many (most?) teens today are very immature, and there could be an argument for raising such age to something like 20 or 21.

I knew a woman who had serious mental health issues. She was fully developed, with large curves, DD+ by 11 years old. She was a terrified person by nature and didn't trust any men because ever since she was 11 years old, she had adult men constantly harass her. Even at her primary school while she was in uniform. She suffered constant sexual harassment and developed this absolute distrust and utter fear of all men, and it completely shaped her current personality. To my knowledge she didn't have sex with an adult while underage but she might have left that out if it was too painful for her.

It's a similar argument albeit perhaps no where near as severe, to abortion. Abortion is legally speaking a grey area because different states and countries have different laws on it. But at what point does a fetus gain consciousness? At what point does the child inside the womb count as a life, that aborting should be considered murder?

Legally, there are states and countries that allow full term abortion. Australia is one of them! It's disgusting. There should be zero grey area, laws should be universally strict on this in favor of protecting the child. We could learn one day that as soon as a child is conceived, they have consciousness. Just because we don't know if that's true or not does not mean we should pretend it's not, and be able to legally murder that child with no repercussion.

When the risks and consequences on the child's health and wellbeing are this severe, the law should not be grey, it should be universal. If a child is not old enough to legally purchase alcohol, it should also be illegal to have sex with them.

While I think we agree on the core issue of protecting children, and both think the age of 18 is about right, I have to disagree with you on the "universal" suggestion of laws.

First, the only way to have a "universal" law would be if there was a World Government. I'm against that basic concept.

Second, Governments today have shown they are completely irresponsible. The US Federal Government, for example, is over $31 Trillion in debt. Would you trust an entity that irresponsible with your children? Also, over the past two years, they have shown themselves to have no regard for the people they supposedly "serve."

Third, if you've read books like "The Franklin Coverup," there are credible accusations that many members of US Government (and others) have engaged in this horrific behavior.

I think the ultimate protection of children will come down to the family, which is supposed to be both a strong moral and business unit, though clearly, the family has been under attack (at least for the "non-elite"). A strong mother and father will do more to protect a child from this than any government could ever hope to (even a well run one with public servants that truly thought of their constituents), and if they did a good job instilling morals and maturity into their children, they would ultimately render any such "age of consent" laws unnecessary, whether they are on the books or not.

 

[Adf]

As far as alcohol regulations go, it's totally commercial in nature. You have to be 21 to BUY alcohol. In many states, you had to be 18 to buy tobacco. 17, as I mentioned, is the youngest to join the military. 16 used to be the age when you could get a driver's license in most states. These regulations were put in place by various levels of government for various reasons, and many have pointed out that it's odd that you can be thought of as responsible enough to go fight a war at 17, but not responsible enough to have a beer at a bar until 4 years later?

If you've ever read a legal treatise, you quickly learn that all sorts of hard to conceive of situations pop up. A good reason for a grey area in this matter is that teens date. Consider a scenario where a boy 18 years and 2 months old dates a girl 17 years and 10 months old. With a hard line, that situation could end up with the boy being labeled a sex offender for life (situations like this have even come up in some places). Even though in reality, they are basically the same age.

Here, you are already making exceptions to your hard line. I agree, it's a logical exception, but this is why laws, codes and such are written various ways, in no uniform way at all. Different concerns and situations may have come up in the various places that wrote different laws or codes.

I always bristle a bit at phrases like "we should" in this context. Personally, I did not write any of the current laws or codes, nor was I consulted for my input one way or another.

I find it a bit odd that there does seem to be a "social consensus" around the age of 18, despite no legal consensus. It's a bit arbitrary. After all, if someone at 17 is mature enough to join the military, shouldn't they be mature enough to engage in relationships without state restrictions? On the flip side, it seems like many (most?) teens today are very immature, and there could be an argument for raising such age to something like 20 or 21.

While I think we agree on the core issue of protecting children, and both think the age of 18 is about right, I have to disagree with you on the "universal" suggestion of laws.

First, the only way to have a "universal" law would be if there was a World Government. I'm against that basic concept.

Second, Governments today have shown they are completely irresponsible. The US Federal Government, for example, is over $31 Trillion in debt. Would you trust an entity that irresponsible with your children? Also, over the past two years, they have shown themselves to have no regard for the people they supposedly "serve."

Third, if you've read books like "The Franklin Coverup," there are credible accusations that many members of US Government (and others) have engaged in this horrific behavior.

I think the ultimate protection of children will come down to the family, which is supposed to be both a strong moral and business unit, though clearly, the family has been under attack (at least for the "non-elite"). A strong mother and father will do more to protect a child from this than any government could ever hope to (even a well run one with public servants that truly thought of their constituents), and if they did a good job instilling morals and maturity into their children, they would ultimately render any such "age of consent" laws unnecessary, whether they are on the books or not.

Yes definitely it is ultimately up to the parents to protect their child. I agree with most everything you say, I guess I just have trouble communicating it. I spoke of a lot of 'shoulds' that will likely never happen with the governments and elites, as you say, utter corruption. In a better world our children would be much better protected by the laws that are meant to protect us. I do believe a universal law protecting children could be done without a one world government. There is already a thing such as the Nuremburg code that exists without there being a one world government., though unfortunately it seems no one is adhering to that code lately.

When the government won't write hard laws for something that we believe is wrong, it is up to us, the people, to ensure everybody knows what is wrong. Or at least what we strongly believe to be wrong. Hence my posts, and the creation of this board.

This is likely why the general consensus for the right age of adulthood is around 18 years, it's an age that feels right to the general community. Even if laws don't catch up, as you say it's up to us, to the parents, but also to our community and society to police the ethics.

I do find your point on adults being more childish today noteworthy. It is definitely the case for what I can see where I live, my generation looks and acts much younger than the previous generation. I had friends whom I cut all ties with, who all acted like 5 to 10 year olds, even into their late 20's. Letting your inner child out once in a while is healthy, but living like an immature child permanently is irritating and limiting to those around you. It's possible an official discussion for the legal age of consent, the minimum age to enlist, and the legal age to purchase alcohol to be increased should ethically be had because of this. But I doubt that will never happen, it's more likely we see more of the opposite.

 

[ThinPicking]

@tankasnowgod

America, get this man to the hill when the goblins are squished.

 

[Peatness]

Peter Nygard: The Canadian Jeffrey Epstein's quest for immortality and his crimes against women and children

As many of you know, the elites have an unhealthy obsession with living forever. This is not an exception but the rule. We are dealing with people who gained power through corrupt means and retain it in the same way. When they feel that they have nothing left to gain, this is when they reach...

pepelivesmatter.substack.com

 

[Peatful]

Well
This isn’t good


View: https://youtu.be/B_pbeERcIEE

 

[ThinPicking]

Well
This isn’t good


View: https://youtu.be/B_pbeERcIEE

Hard to watch. Just chiming in to draw attention to the part at the end. "Alfred Kelly" as CEO of "Visa" nor the people who operate this "MindGeek" demon fundamentally can't be held criminally liable. Only the dead body they're hiding behind.

All legislation underpinning the concept of corporate personhood must be immediately repealed and replaced with a single instrument that makes owners and operators directly liable for their deeds.

Simultaneously the deeper and darker aspects of the human condition that make this a thing in the first place need addressing. Somehow.

 

[Peatful]

Not fact checked. Probably true.

 

[ThinPicking]

Not fact checked. Probably true.

View attachment 40699

View: https://youtu.be/Xq-knHXSKYY

Mute the audio if Tim's house vibe's not your thang.

Say a little prayer for the chap in the world beyond.

 

[Peatful]

View attachment 40700


View: https://youtu.be/Xq-knHXSKYY

Mute the audio if Tim's house vibe's not your thang.

Say a little prayer for the chap in the world beyond.

Thank you
At work
But wanted to say I appreciate you

 

[ThinPicking]

Thank you
At work
But wanted to say I appreciate you

Ta love. I defer appreciation to God and send it back to you.

 

[tankasnowgod]

There is already a thing such as the Nuremburg code that exists without there being a one world government., though unfortunately it seems no one is adhering to that code lately.

The Nuremburg Code was the product of one of the most famous and egregious Kangaroo Courts in history. As such, no country ever adopted it. Not only were completely innocent men like Rudolph Hess condemned to life in prison (in his case, for the "war crime" of trying to negotiate peace), horrific criminals like Stalin and Truman never even faced charges. Of course, when you see who was running that sham, it's easy to understand why. Whatever anyone's crimes, the one thing everyone deserves is a fair trial. No German at Nuremburg got one.

Of course, the Nuremburg Code itself is unnecessary. The idea of "informed consent" is a maxim of law, dating back centuries. There is nothing revolutionary about that. It's also telling that while the code refers to medical experiments, the countries and people involved in creating the code (like Dr. Ewen Cameron) freely violated the code whenever they felt like it, before, during and after it was written (see the Tuskegee Experiments, MK Ultra, and US radiation experiments).

A short clip describing the horrors Dr. Cameron inflicted on patients just 5 years after the Nuremburg Trials-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNPTLKzqjuM&t=210s


President Clinton talking about unethical radiation experiments that took place in the 40-70's, again mostly after the trials and the code-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StId27Dmx78

 

[Peatness]

23:09 - The WHO's Sexualisation of Infants

Sources:
*******************

WHO CC: - Standards for Sexuality Education | BZgA WHO-CC

Bzga: - Startseite

Policy Brief: - https://bit.ly/3cupNQ5

ITGOSE Document: - https://bit.ly/3ApM6OV

Pedophile's Website: - https://archive.ph/5EAhx

 

[Peatful]

Thought this was a few years in the future.
Should have known better.

Upcoming bestiality talk at Australian festival sparks controversy

A Sydney festival has ignited uproar over an upcoming talk that will explore the ‘ethics of bestiality’, describing sex with animals as one of society’s “last taboos”.

tottnews.com

@Peatness posted elsewhere

 

[AlaskaJono]

Thought this was a few years in the future.
Should have known better.

Upcoming bestiality talk at Australian festival sparks controversy

A Sydney festival has ignited uproar over an upcoming talk that will explore the ‘ethics of bestiality’, describing sex with animals as one of society’s “last taboos”.

tottnews.com

@Peatness posted elsewhere

What happens in Sydney, stays in Sydney...
We all hope... extreme debauchery there, I ought to know, I grew up in NOLA, New Orleans, Louisiana

 

[TheCalciumCad]

Interesting doc on Jimmy Savile


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUuCWNyvv8