Officer T. shouldn't have broached the topic. I don't intend to sexually arouse anyone who doesn't want that.
He stated, starting as a righteous test, that what I was writing was a form of textual fornication. The idea, under my Christian beliefs, is to give a valid defense as the defendant, meaning an ulterior reason for the text that shows that one has motives (deleted "needs") other than sexual motives behind the post, such as to inform others about a topic relevant to children's rights.
You aren't the fornicator in the case you were simply testing, but I don't exactly take kindly to people with a defensive attitude. Just state the facts and quit the crap.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Any comment that
1. Endorses child abuse (including pornography of such)
2. Imposes want to the point of imposition, meaning entitlement.
3. Contains self-entitled parent rhetoric, to the point of self-victimization
will not be published. Flexible application. Debate is allowed, but only civil arguments that presume the best of intentions in their opponent, on both sides.