Look, you tend to make blanket statements pretty frequently.
No, i dont. You just keep saying i do.
It's also very frustrating that you just keep dismissing the fetishistic side of this.
I do not. What the data shows is that it is (counterintuitively) very rare. So vanishingly rare that if you used such rare occurances in any other context, you would dismiss them out of hand as noise range aberrations that will occur in any public policy, and cannot be reasonably prevented. The kind of people that do the weird freaky ◊◊◊◊ are doing it with or without policy on their side. This mythical beast that would be a gruesome goblin if only he was allowed to is a figment of the imagination. The real weirdos are doing their weirdo things whether they are allowed to or not, and the behaviors you describe are criminal, and fully prosecutable when caught.
That argument is the dead-on equivalent of saying men cannot work in a school system, because some one in a million freak might slip through the cracks. Consider your argument here:
They share tips with each other about how you can freeze tomato juice then stick it up their backsides so it trickles out as it thaws to simulate a period and they get "bloody" undies to masturbate to.
We went over that one. It came from some unknown screenshot of a chat room from 2003, with three anonymous participants. We cannot even verify if it is real or (as it would seem) another bull ◊◊◊◊ put-on.
Yet here you are, holding it up as if it was verified fact, commonplace and representative. That detracts from any serious discussion, as does the imaginary AGP arguments.
Posters leave this thread in droves, and don't return, because of arguments like this. They are ridiculous. We should be able to talk about this rationally, without resorting to the alt right Twitter twat postings that some here relish in repeating.
You, and others, have made some very persuasive points in this debate, but when you lower yourself to this kind of argument, it detracts mightily from your credibility and your honesty comes into question.
That 2003 anonymous screenshot has dead zero credibility, yet you hold it up as if it is representative. That's why some of us push back. Not because of your better points, but because arguing at that level.of disingenuousness casts doubt on your motivations.
Before we go any further, do you get why your well thought and persuasive arguments are undermined by relying on that kind of bull ◊◊◊◊?
www.dailymail.co.uk
