Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

bro it's a dog, not a person. there's no possible conceptualization of consent to violate, in the now, or at any point in the future.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Now apply that argument to minors.

"Minors aren't dogs" won't dig you out of that hole.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

you are pooping me? lol. what is going on your guys' brains that makes you so r-slurred?

yes! literally minors aren't dogs ...

they are people, therefore there is a possible conceptualization of consent to violate. in the future, at the very least.

totally different issue right there.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>fails to realize that consent can be deferred (power of attorney, guardianship) and inferred (informal consent)

>cannot think figuratively

Still in that hole, le autiste.

You can pet a dog and infer that it likes that when it wags its tail and snuggles for more. Likewise, you can groom a minor and infer that they like to be """violated.""" (Hint: the analogy is asking you to spot the difference).

Answer: you can ponder all you like about personhood status and consent problems, but the state will simply mandate that you're too r-slurred to be trusted with such concepts and their relevance to sexual acts. Hence, laws against beastiality and pedophilia.

Anyway, dude lmao bussy have fun dying on the beastiality hill.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.