Grown Woman twerks for a Kid on his birthday
Options
Comments
-
Lol guys come on what Zzombie sayin' is biologically and physiologically accurate.
-
atribecalledgabi wrote: »Look I knew that I liked girls when I was 4. Point blank. I found them pretty and went after them even the older ones.
I was such a monster in kindergarten I didn't even keep male friends. My best friend at 5 was the girl who sat next to me in class. It wasn't till I was like 11 that I started to think of sexing chicks though. Never at age 5 or 6.
However that was me. I know someone who is 29 now and still talks about the time he was 8 and 3 9 year old girls cornered him in a room and forced themselves on him. He ran out scared and told his older sis (they were relatives of her husband) but the girls knew what they were after.
So yeah some kids might want more by that age but they're also likely not as right in the head as your average kid either. It's not exactly universal behavior.
They don't hear you.... The i.c thinks 10 year olds are sweet innocent people. But the reality is children Are Monsters and we make them into people it's called socialization. All the feelings and emotions adults have children have the only difference is in children all those instincts are raw underdeveloped and unregulated.
Nobody said any of that tho. Everybody knows and accepts that children will find other children attractive and have harmless crushes...maybe even kiss...a lot of times they're just mirroring what they see adults do.
But legitimately involving adults into that is where people are drawing the line.
Of course involving adults with children is wrong I said that in my first post. I just take issue with people denying the fact that children are actually sexually attracted to the opposite sex and their body parts. -
Damn dat ass fat...
-
atribecalledgabi wrote: »To all yall ? saying smash....yall cool with giving attention to a ? that abuses children
They be the same one upset at male ? threads.
Hypocrites -
Look I knew that I liked girls when I was 4. Point blank. I found them pretty and went after them even the older ones.
I was such a monster in kindergarten I didn't even keep male friends. My best friend at 5 was the girl who sat next to me in class. It wasn't till I was like 11 that I started to think of sexing chicks though. Never at age 5 or 6.
However that was me. I know someone who is 29 now and still talks about the time he was 8 and 3 9 year old girls cornered him in a room and forced themselves on him. He ran out scared and told his older sis (they were relatives of her husband) but the girls knew what they were after.
So yeah some kids might want more by that age but they're also likely not as right in the head as your average kid either. It's not exactly universal behavior.
They don't hear you.... The i.c thinks 10 year olds are sweet innocent people. But the reality is children Are Monsters and we make them into people it's called socialization. All the feelings and emotions adults have children have the only difference is in children all those instincts are raw underdeveloped and unregulated.
Not exactly the point I was trying to make.
Children are blank canvases or fresh clay molded by it's environmental influences. They absorb what's around them; but on a biological level yes it's possible for younger children to be attracted to someone.
However that does not mean this attraction equates with sexualization. The attraction is more instinctive and based on allure not sexuality.
There are kids that do have sexualized feelings before the pubescent stage. Yes. Those kids are also products of their environment like all other kids and therefore an exception. Not the rule.
There is a rarer group that feels it regardless of their influences but again they are an even smaller minority.
You're making a nurture over nature argument but nah when it comes to sexuality it's nature over nurture. -
Busta Carmichael wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »To all yall ? saying smash....yall cool with giving attention to a ? that abuses children
They be the same one upset at male ? threads.
Hypocrites
What's "? " about wanting to smash the chick ? -
Busta Carmichael wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »To all yall ? saying smash....yall cool with giving attention to a ? that abuses children
They be the same one upset at male ? threads.
Hypocrites
What's "? " about wanting to smash the chick ?
No people condoning this ? saying "lucky boy" and all that. -
Look I knew that I liked girls when I was 4. Point blank. I found them pretty and went after them even the older ones.
I was such a monster in kindergarten I didn't even keep male friends. My best friend at 5 was the girl who sat next to me in class. It wasn't till I was like 11 that I started to think of sexing chicks though. Never at age 5 or 6.
However that was me. I know someone who is 29 now and still talks about the time he was 8 and 3 9 year old girls cornered him in a room and forced themselves on him. He ran out scared and told his older sis (they were relatives of her husband) but the girls knew what they were after.
So yeah some kids might want more by that age but they're also likely not as right in the head as your average kid either. It's not exactly universal behavior.
They don't hear you.... The i.c thinks 10 year olds are sweet innocent people. But the reality is children Are Monsters and we make them into people it's called socialization. All the feelings and emotions adults have children have the only difference is in children all those instincts are raw underdeveloped and unregulated.
Not exactly the point I was trying to make.
Children are blank canvases or fresh clay molded by it's environmental influences. They absorb what's around them; but on a biological level yes it's possible for younger children to be attracted to someone.
However that does not mean this attraction equates with sexualization. The attraction is more instinctive and based on allure not sexuality.
There are kids that do have sexualized feelings before the pubescent stage. Yes. Those kids are also products of their environment like all other kids and therefore an exception. Not the rule.
There is a rarer group that feels it regardless of their influences but again they are an even smaller minority.
You're making a nurture over nature argument but nah when it comes to sexuality it's nature over nurture.
If that was the case most children would act on their sexual impulses. They do not. -
Look I knew that I liked girls when I was 4. Point blank. I found them pretty and went after them even the older ones.
I was such a monster in kindergarten I didn't even keep male friends. My best friend at 5 was the girl who sat next to me in class. It wasn't till I was like 11 that I started to think of sexing chicks though. Never at age 5 or 6.
However that was me. I know someone who is 29 now and still talks about the time he was 8 and 3 9 year old girls cornered him in a room and forced themselves on him. He ran out scared and told his older sis (they were relatives of her husband) but the girls knew what they were after.
So yeah some kids might want more by that age but they're also likely not as right in the head as your average kid either. It's not exactly universal behavior.
They don't hear you.... The i.c thinks 10 year olds are sweet innocent people. But the reality is children Are Monsters and we make them into people it's called socialization. All the feelings and emotions adults have children have the only difference is in children all those instincts are raw underdeveloped and unregulated.
Not exactly the point I was trying to make.
Children are blank canvases or fresh clay molded by it's environmental influences. They absorb what's around them; but on a biological level yes it's possible for younger children to be attracted to someone.
However that does not mean this attraction equates with sexualization. The attraction is more instinctive and based on allure not sexuality.
There are kids that do have sexualized feelings before the pubescent stage. Yes. Those kids are also products of their environment like all other kids and therefore an exception. Not the rule.
There is a rarer group that feels it regardless of their influences but again they are an even smaller minority.
You're making a nurture over nature argument but nah when it comes to sexuality it's nature over nurture.
If that was the case most children would act on their sexual impulses. They do not.
Because most children are successfully socialized. In other words there nature is tamed when this process doesn't go right bad things happen -
Busta Carmichael wrote: »Busta Carmichael wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »To all yall ? saying smash....yall cool with giving attention to a ? that abuses children
They be the same one upset at male ? threads.
Hypocrites
What's "? " about wanting to smash the chick ?
No people condoning this ? saying "lucky boy" and all that.
Yeah - no doubt. MFs can say what they want about their own kids or their own experience but to act like there's some general consensus or scientific fact that a little kid would like a grown stripper dancing on them is some weirdo ? .
? , even if you started puberty, or started havin sex at a young age - you can't make some kind of general statement about ? like this - and you damn sure can't mix it with some grown ass person being involved and act like it's normal. -
Busta Carmichael wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »To all yall ? saying smash....yall cool with giving attention to a ? that abuses children
They be the same one upset at male ? threads.
Hypocrites
What's "? " about wanting to smash the chick ?
You're not ? but you're validating the behavior by ? with somebody that molested a child -
atribecalledgabi wrote: »To all yall ? saying smash....yall cool with giving attention to a ? that abuses children
I don’t consider what she did as abuse tho. Highly inappropriate, but not abusive -
If she was my wife or if the boy was my son I’d be tight af.
But they ain’t so I’m not. -
Inglewood_B wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »To all yall ? saying smash....yall cool with giving attention to a ? that abuses children
I don’t consider what she did as abuse tho. Highly inappropriate, but not abusive
I get where you coming from...but this is 100% abuse. She and all the other adults there need their ass whooped. -
Hey guys we not allowed to judge a woman for what she does with her body remember
-
Now if u ask me id say the broad need to marry herself
-
atribecalledgabi wrote: »To all yall ? saying smash....yall cool with giving attention to a ? that abuses children
Now you know ? ain't about to take responsibility for going after the very women they shame
"That's just what ? do: Nas " Fried Chicken" -
Elzo69Renaissance wrote: »No one is outraged enough to call the authorities?
............................ -
This has nothing to do with what type of women men go after and has everything to do with a society that has told females that everything they do falls under the umbrella of female empowerment.
You can't check these hoes because there are no consequences for their actions really.
I mean we have grown ass teachers cheating on husband with high school students and catching probation sentences.
In fact the most notorious one was turned into a lifetime movie where Mary Lou whatever the ? her last name is was given the sympathetic treatment.
Females occupy this space where they are both children and adults, so when they do some ? up ? It's downplayed.
Instances where children are abused violently by there own mothers, or sold off as prostitutes by their mothers or placed in special ed classes so the mother can get that $900 check every month.
Females have been allowed to be unaccountable for their actions for ? ever and it's only because we live in a viral media society that some of it is seen. -
atribecalledgabi wrote: »Busta Carmichael wrote: »atribecalledgabi wrote: »To all yall ? saying smash....yall cool with giving attention to a ? that abuses children
They be the same one upset at male ? threads.
Hypocrites
What's "? " about wanting to smash the chick ?
You're not ? but you're validating the behavior by ? with somebody that molested a child
Can't really elaborate on it at the moment, but I get what you mean. Assuming MFs just thinking about smashin and not validating that other ? - unless stated otherwise. -
This has nothing to do with what type of women men go after and has everything to do with a society that has told females that everything they do falls under the umbrella of female empowerment.
You can't check these hoes because there are no consequences for their actions really.
I mean we have grown ass teachers cheating on husband with high school students and catching probation sentences.
In fact the most notorious one was turned into a lifetime movie where Mary Lou whatever the ? her last name is was given the sympathetic treatment.
Females occupy this space where they are both children and adults, so when they do some ? up ? It's downplayed.
Instances where children are abused violently by there own mothers, or sold off as prostitutes by their mothers or placed in special ed classes so the mother can get that $900 check every month.
Females have been allowed to be unaccountable for their actions for ? ever and it's only because we live in a viral media society that some of it is seen.
I mean... in reality u should be more ? at the men who made these rules.
It's men in here not caring about it and not calling it abuse. Saying "smash" or whatever.
I don't care if u would smash, ? how does that info benefit me?
Also men who simp and allow scandalous women to walk over them and they firmly believe that they aren't suckers. Because "it ain't trickin if u got it" while these particular women laugh and finesse the rest of the suckers in her dm's.
Also men have been the judges in most cases where the woman gets special treatment.
I've always said I despise simps more than I despise cheaters/promiscuous women. Because they encourage it.
But yeah... it all boils down to men in the end. -
Busta Carmichael wrote: »This has nothing to do with what type of women men go after and has everything to do with a society that has told females that everything they do falls under the umbrella of female empowerment.
You can't check these hoes because there are no consequences for their actions really.
I mean we have grown ass teachers cheating on husband with high school students and catching probation sentences.
In fact the most notorious one was turned into a lifetime movie where Mary Lou whatever the ? her last name is was given the sympathetic treatment.
Females occupy this space where they are both children and adults, so when they do some ? up ? It's downplayed.
Instances where children are abused violently by there own mothers, or sold off as prostitutes by their mothers or placed in special ed classes so the mother can get that $900 check every month.
Females have been allowed to be unaccountable for their actions for ? ever and it's only because we live in a viral media society that some of it is seen.
I mean... in reality u should be more ? at the men who made these rules.
It's men in here not caring about it and not calling it abuse. Saying "smash" or whatever.
I don't care if u would smash, ? how does that info benefit me?
Also men who simp and allow scandalous women to walk over them and they firmly believe that they aren't suckers. Because "it ain't trickin if u got it" while these particular women laugh and finesse the rest of the suckers in her dm's.
Also men have been the judges in most cases where the woman gets special treatment.
I've always said I despise simps more than I despise cheaters/promiscuous women. Because they encourage it.
But yeah... it all boils down to men in the end.
No. It doesn't.
Females have organized themselves as a political and social class that lobbies politicians for biased legislation, maneuvering themselves into positions of power and influence and creating social pressures that have a negative impact on males.
College campuses, all the various viral campaigns from "don't tell me to smile" "street harassment" "me too"
These are all examples of females mobilizing as an untouchable unaccountable class. This viral video of this boy is one example, the mother slapping her son in a barber shop is another. The women who've killed or abused their sons to spite the father are more.
The political structure of women has ingrained in society that females are a victim child and males are the oppressor class. So anything a woman does to a man is somehow his fault. Or excusable. Even if a woman does something to another woman it's because she was influenced by the patriarchy.
Even in this thread we are blaming phantom ? , men who aren't even on the scene, for this woman's predatory behavior. -
Women are the majority voting class so you cant blame men for how elections turn out.
Females are the primary caregivers of children so you can't blame men for how the children turn out.
Women are the primary teachers, college students, highest earners of single adults.
Women have all these positions of power and influence and no responsibility no obligation no duty. It manifests itself in ways like this.
You couldn't pay a grown man in his right mind to grind on some little girl, because they understand that morally that's wrong and that there are consequences for such actions. -
Busta Carmichael wrote: »This has nothing to do with what type of women men go after and has everything to do with a society that has told females that everything they do falls under the umbrella of female empowerment.
You can't check these hoes because there are no consequences for their actions really.
I mean we have grown ass teachers cheating on husband with high school students and catching probation sentences.
In fact the most notorious one was turned into a lifetime movie where Mary Lou whatever the ? her last name is was given the sympathetic treatment.
Females occupy this space where they are both children and adults, so when they do some ? up ? It's downplayed.
Instances where children are abused violently by there own mothers, or sold off as prostitutes by their mothers or placed in special ed classes so the mother can get that $900 check every month.
Females have been allowed to be unaccountable for their actions for ? ever and it's only because we live in a viral media society that some of it is seen.
I mean... in reality u should be more ? at the men who made these rules.
It's men in here not caring about it and not calling it abuse. Saying "smash" or whatever.
I don't care if u would smash, ? how does that info benefit me?
Also men who simp and allow scandalous women to walk over them and they firmly believe that they aren't suckers. Because "it ain't trickin if u got it" while these particular women laugh and finesse the rest of the suckers in her dm's.
Also men have been the judges in most cases where the woman gets special treatment.
I've always said I despise simps more than I despise cheaters/promiscuous women. Because they encourage it.
But yeah... it all boils down to men in the end.
Nope, not really.
In many, if not most, jurisdictions judges are voted into office. This means that the female population either voted for that judge or didn't give enough of a ? to vote for the opposition.
Same for lawmakers: Women hold the power to put other women into office or at least put a man in office that is sympathetic to their causes but they don't. They elect the men or women that align closest to their values which might be contrary to those of "women's rights" groups. Believe it or not there's a shitload of women that don't believe in abortion, that don't believe a woman should be the head of a household, don't believe a woman should lead a church, and a whole host of other things. Women wield a significant amount of power when it comes to the laws and ? that get put on the books.
The judges that were sympathetic to women where they were the perp in ? cases likely had a large number of women that put him into that position BECAUSE he's sympathetic towards women. I'm not saying that's always the case, but it can and has been. -
Men help to further this ? with constant talk about "man I wish I had that teacher" or "I would have loved that at 10" and other dumb ? . You can't ask why women get a pass for this ? while actively engaging in conversation that does just that
