Did Lyrabella offend my standards as a member of the community

 No, she did not violate my standards. It was a search party interrogation, and there was all sorts of mayhem besides that going on. 

Women can be pedophiles, and I try my best to keep my language about pedophilia gender-neutral because I'm not triggered or made insecure by a woman being a pedophile. Just another thing in common, that's all. Support each other in not offending.

She's like 30? When clothes are on, that's a bit old for me, to say the least. I think she is worried that I do want to turn her into the police. I AM very conservative when it comes to sexuality. Dry town feeling, even when I live in the least dry of all towns. But, the circumstances themselves is what I deem unlawful, not her. Woe to the state for allowing the exploitation of trauma, childhood, and pedophilia. I mean, isn't this level of interrogation banned in other states.

I tend to judge women by their looks last, or when they are attractive, their looks privately. Male judgment of appearance should be a private matter, meaning I shouldn't walk by a young girl and laugh while shouting catcalls. That's just rude, and a form of sexual abuse by my religious understanding.

I know what a gaslighting offense is, Lyrabella. I'm not THAT self-hating. I have come to the belief that a moral crime has to come with the intent to commit said moral crime, and fornication is intent to commit a sexual act perceived by the plaintiff. The Bible works differently than the law here as the secular law itself requires malicious intent, meaning an actual offense would not be that random, and would require planning. With the biblical law, all that is necessary is intent, meaning willful or reckless desire to commit a moral crime, with duress being a defense if you were coerced, and didn't identify by the act, which I was horrified when I did it, and embarrassed indeed. Deadly fornication would involve me defending it as a "right" for myself and possibly others...That was not who I was then, meaning some bug made me do it, like spinnie top. 

I judge all pedophiles, of all identified genders, the same..."presume"/"reason to believe", in incremental format, with innocence bias, and that includes reports of sex crimes to my court. My court leans on the judgment of the secular court, meaning the Crimes Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This also refers to invisible laws that are unfair, yet still exist, so give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God. In an ordinary setting, a woman being naked at a golf course would violate community standards. Search party scenes involve reducing to eliminating community standards on nudity and baseness...She had the right to wear her body as was appropriate given that setting, and pedophilia is irrelevant to anything. 

In the realm of VirPed, while being a former member, I had no real opinion of Lyrabella, but I do know about her family situation, and it seems similar to mine in terms of parent acceptance. Yes, stucco describes my privacy policy as well, at least from now on. She'd me curious to know that certain levels of autism are indeed more well-received by society than most pedophiles, and also most pedophiles you see in the news aren't really pedophiles, clinically, and most of the teachers who get arrested have a normative attraction to a teenager that they choose to act on, thus we shouldn't even be calling them pedophiles...I can be more open mainly due to my special interests in children's rights, and how I describe them. Most people would, at least, suspect something, and keep an eye on me. Wearing my stripes by not hiding anything, but not willfully showing anything either. Ask, and you shall receive, but maybe I won't even bring up the topic, and maybe just not guard my glance. With me it is something you can just get your eyes upon if you are looking, but nobody is, but everyone would if I meant harm to a child.