French petition against age of consent law

NOOOO! YOU CAN'T TREAT SEXUALITY AS A NORMAL HEALTHY THING, YOU SOUND BE ASHAMED OF IT AND HIDE IT AWAY

Attached: 612-6125894_127-kb-png-soy-boy-wojak-transparent-png.jpg (840x838, 188K)

The whole club. All the old boys.
>b-but It's capitalism That's destroying the family structure and
True But irrelevant. Capitalists are just trying to make a profit and sometimes This means doing degenerate things. Commies are actually actively trying to fuck society up.

In short: “age is just a number” but extremely verbose and convoluted

I imagined something like that but are there any actual quotes where this is implicit? Never really read any modern/post-modern french intellectuals.

There's Nothing normal or healthy In fucking raping children and If You insist there is I will discover your whereabouts and as soon as you reproduce and the kid regardless of sex reaches the age of 10; I will kidnap rape and torture your progeny.

Prison is just a room

Who said anything about rape? You have a sick mind dude

Let's get the morals out of the way first, shall we?
Thank you Yea Forums for defending pedophilia. Truly heroic.

Moral abhorrency aside, let's move onto the argument. There's a pragmatic argument to be had for the removal of age of consent laws resulting in the possibility of more exploitative and abusive relationships with children taking place. I do not think the pros of allowing degenerates to have their desires sated outweighs the cost of possibly traumatizing kids. Nor do I think children can consent, and that pedophilia should be "de-stigmatized".

Attached: bruh.png (384x384, 31K)

>>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws
>>French petition against age of consent law
>>"A number of French intellectuals - including such prominent names as Louis Aragon, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Roland Barthes, Simone de Beauvoir, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Michel Leiris, Alain Robbe-Grillet, Philippe Sollers, Jacques Rancière, Jean-François Lyotard, Francis Ponge, and various prominent doctors and psychologists - signed the petition."
Sorry sweaty, but this is actually based.
Also, Reddit spacing--please go back.

>healthy and fully developed people having sex is bad because my feels

>"In the case of "attentat sans violence" [attack without violence], the offence in which the police have been unable to find anything, nothing at all, in that case, the criminal is simply a criminal because he is a criminal, because he has those tastes. It is what used to be called a crime of opinion. (...) The crime vanishes, nobody is concerned any longer to know whether in fact a crime was committed or not, whether someone has been hurt or not. No one is even concerned any more whether there actually was a victim."
This is from French writer Guy Hocquenghem during a conversation he had with Michel Foucault.
(I took this from Wikipedia. The whole article has more quotes too)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Morality_and_the_Law

Oops replied to the wrong post

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT FORCE AGE OF CONSENT ARE BABY FUCKERS

>be France
>eldest daughter of the Church and first great Christianised European power
>send my sons in England to prevent it from being taken over by vikings
>later defeat and push back the Eternal Anglo, thus ending its pretensions to set foot on the Continent
>stop the Arabs who has already swallowed half of Europe and would have prevented European civilization to arise
>be a bastion of triumphant Catholicism against Muslims and later Protestant for over a thousand years
>spearhead the Crusades
>introduce manifold development in Christian thought, creates some of the first (Christian) universities, contributes generously to science and arts century after century
>set Europeans standards multiple times in mathematics, litterature, theater and government
>create the basis of modern law for half the modern world
>welcomes and nurture all manner of artists and intellectuals from Dante to Henry Miller
>gives birth to the European revolutionary spirit, during that time, still produces many great catholic thinkers and writers
>inspires the fuck out of 19th century Russia, aka most based Russia
>safeguards Europe's tradition of intellectual vivacity and intuition again growing German autistry and Anglo utilitarianism
>maintain a solid and up-to-date school of Catholic-inspired philosophy well into the 20th century, while America is busy worshipping the dollar and England is Eternal Angloing out of reality
>one time, at some point in the single most degenerate decade of world history, a couple handful of semi-relevant academics on my soil make a degenerate petition
>it doesn't bear fruit and is remembered as a shame
>barely 50 years later French religious sentiment is already on the rise again, one Catholic soldier heroically sacrifices his life to save civilians from a muslim attackers in true crusading spirit
>mfw one faggot tranny on a pedophilic website use this petition to sully my name

Attached: 2125514954.jpg (1024x682, 563K)

Implying I care enough about common praxis on this website to relinquish what I find to be better looking spacing.

Who are you arguing against? I don't see any connection between my post and your reply.

It's always been like that. The "she must be 18" thing is an American meme. Nature tells us that s soon as women start growing pubic hair they're sexually ready.

Anything below 12 should be forbidden, though.

>nooooo you can't be in love without our pedophillic overlords' permission

Attached: 6737980E-B354-443C-8ED8-7631FD37175A.jpg (466x440, 48K)

>don't see any connection between my post and your reply.
Work on your reading comprehension then

>all the moralfags seething in this thread
lmao

Attached: 9d788b90-c709-4137-90da-1678e857e5d0.jpg (500x354, 36K)

You forgot:
>Cheese eating surrender monkeys who like to bend over for Kraut invaders

Attached: white-flag.jpg (450x450, 13K)

>NOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT HAVE SEX WITH 14 YEAR OLD SCHOOLGIRLS!!! THEY'RE NOT READY YET! THEY HAVENT MATUR- w...WHAT DO YOU MEAN GIRLS REACH THEIR PEAK ATTRACTIVENESS AT AGES 13-16??? NOOOOOOOOOO EVEN IF THEY HAVE FIRM BREASTS, BUTTOCKS AND WIDE HIPS THEY'rE NOT MENTALLY PREPARED FOR SEX WITH CREEPY OLD GUYS EVEN IF THEY CONSENT THEY CANT THEY DONT UNDERSTAND YET NOOOOOOOOOOOOO W-WHAT DO YOU MEAN WOMEN NEVER MENTALLY MATURE PAST THE AGE OF 12 AND HAVE THE MENTALITY OF CHILDREN UNTIL THEY DIE? THATS SO FUCKING SEXIST AND MYSOGINISTIC

Attached: cryjak.png (522x747, 210K)

Degenerates like you belong on a cross

based and repilled

tell me where in the Bible says that a woman must be 18

How are the French so based?
I guess they learned it from the Russians or something.

Attached: Ivan_Flying.jpg (400x302, 39K)

14 year olds are literally fucking children, no matter which way you try to spin it, your a fucking pedophile. If you ever have talked with a 14 yo you will see that they're not that mentally developed and definitely have tons of neotenous features, which takes away all the credibility from your claim

every day the world strays farther from your cucked skydaddy

>If you ever have talked with a 14 yo you will see that they're not that mentally developed
This happens every time i talk to a woman regardless of their age.

But she doesn’t have to be 18 in America. Nice false dichotomy btw, you can have a reasonable ageof consent

15 seems like a good rule of thumb to me

Age of consent is a capitalistic ploy to make women pursue career paths rather than marry and become loyal housewives. However, sex outside of marriage, or sex with prepubescents, is wrong.

>no baudrillard on list
>no lacan on list
Nice

>But she doesn’t have to be 18 in America.
That's what most people there believe in, anyway.

AoC is necessary in a sexually liberal society or it would be a fucking shitshow like what those Muslim gangs are doing to the poor chavs in Britain.

The reason nobody cared before is that women were practically married off by their parents at a young age, with some input of their own of course, and there were extremely strong taboos against them sleeping around before marriage.

this

Mary had Jesus at age 12. Did God rape her?

Attached: glass-artist-and-glass-painter-gabriele-sitzenstock.jpg (900x717, 85K)

Mary wasn’t real and neither was Jesus but in the story yes

>not christian
>moralizing
ok buddy

>Mary had Jesus at age 12.
which is the age most women start menstruating. God did nothing wrong.

Age of consent used to be 14 in many European countries and still is.

and that's a good thing

>who talked about rape?
>kidnapping and torture are fine tho!
>you have a sick mind.
Everyone who isn't a fucking sociopath realizes that a kid can't really give consent to sex because he (neutral, "singular they" can suck my balls) hasnt been through puberty yet so he litteraly can't fucking understand what sex is worth for the one who's asking him for it and what it fucking implies.
Anyone who isn't an absolute retard aknowledges this and faps to loli-femdom knowing full Well that It's a fantasy and that any such behaviour and "consent" from a real little kid can only come about through terrible trauma.
I could have said that I would just "seduce" your kid but that would have been a fucking lie and therefore I described what I would effectively be doing even If your kid litteraly jumped at my cock the second I touched the zip. It would still be kidnapping, rape and torture.

seething

>14 year olds are literally fucking children
not really, they can already ovulate and have pubic hair.

>some intellectuals were wrong once, therefore ALL things they ever said are wrong too

you guys need to rethink your logic

>implying there aren’t universal human morals irrespective of your religious beliefs
Nice try pedo

>universal human morals
>outside of religion
Kek

jesus Man, did someone rape you when you were a kid or what?
Read the trauma myth by Susan clancy

Yeah that's why the german age of consent is 14
>inb4 rapefugees
It was like that for like forever

Get some reading comprehension retard. He stated "14 year olds are literally fucking chlidren"

this statement means that 14 year old humans are having sexual intercourse (fucking) children, so he is saying that 14 year olds are fucking pre-pubescent children

i have to assume "literally" is just a term of phrase

Oh boy Nietzsche wouldve loved you and your fight against Christianity with deeply internalized christian morals. You sound like a black KKK-member.

Who said they were wrong? A bunch of edgy Internet kids who fail to think outside their ingrained belief system? Why would they be wrong?

>14 year olds are fucking pre-pubescent children
Pseudoscientific american bullshit

>read this pedophile justifying herself you'll change your mind about pedophilia in general!
How about you go fuck yourself, as a rational alternative?

fucking is slang for "to have sex with" are you ESL

What is your core argument?
14 year olds are having sex with prepubescent children (eg children younger than 12 years)?
Why would anyone say that? I read it as "people who have sex with 14 year olds are having sex with prepubescent children" which fits the discussion more. Please enlighten me.

he's just fucking with you

this t b h desu senpai

okay retard

>being a christian in anything but metaphysics
KEK

Go to /his/ if you want philosophical arguments.

>Foucault and his homo buddies want to fuck kids
how is this surprising to anyone?

>Be Foucalt
>Possess intellect
>Create entire philosophical doctrine to justify sexual deviancy among other things
>Sign nonce petition
>Die of AIDS
Huh.

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN I CANT FUCK A FOUR YEAR OLD? HOW DARE YOU DENY ME THAT EXPERIENCE

Attached: 1564749534798.png (261x215, 19K)

God didn't have sex with her, or else she wouldn't be a virgin you fucking mongoloid. Im not even a christian but come the fuck on

this but unironically

You forgot
>rots in hell forever.

Bugchasing fatalism

Based proud frenchman.

She still impregnated her without her consent.

Magnificat anima mea Dominum, et exultavit spiritus meus in Deo salutari meo quia respexit humilitatem ancillae suae, ecce enim ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes
>unwillingly

Delicious irony. History is always the funniest story.

>tfw literal nonces complain about moralizing
>tfw when some crosswired weeb insect thinks itself a nietzchean ubermensch
Listen buddy, you live in a world where half of all people want to kill you and the other half want to kill you but are afraid to admit it.
Your existence causes repulsion in all healthy minds, a disgust on a level comparable to moving rotten corpses. The only reason the masses don't go all chimp and purge every single one of your degenerate asses is because of MORALITY. And instead of recognizing this cloud of sympathy as your only hope and salvation what do you do? You shit on it.
You call us moralizers when everything humanity has done through the ages has been in order to learn how to kill YOU as efficiently, promptly and heartlessly as possible.
Because you are disgusting. And outside of a few mystics and moralists the only human reaction to disgust is to seek to remove the source.

Attached: DyVYfEtV4AEBrHY.jpg (750x504, 55K)

>There's a pragmatic argument to be had for the removal of age of consent laws resulting in the possibility of more exploitative and abusive relationships with children taking place. I do not think the pros of allowing degenerates to have their desires sated outweighs the cost of possibly traumatizing kids. Nor do I think children can consent, and that pedophilia should be "de-stigmatized".
Yes well that already occurs. You seem to assume fucking a 5 year old won't be illegal just because there's no age of consent on the books but once you're accused of rape you're probably not going to be found innocent. You assume age of consent does more good than harm which is what's questionable since countries with tougher laws would be safer which is questionable.

A child means 17 year olds in a lot of places. If you just want to say pre-pubescent (which isn't codified in law) can't consent then you don't need to refer to age but physiological states but you're still letting 78IQ mental retards get knocked up.

Excellent

no one is shitting on morals. More like shitting on the hypocrisy of people like you, who claim to be good but turns into a lynching monkey who spams death threats online because someone disagreed with your pre conceived world view.

>A child means 17 year olds in a lot of places. If you just want to say pre-pubescent (which isn't codified in law) can't consent then you don't need to refer to age but physiological states but you're still letting 78IQ mental retards get knocked up.
Fair point; but irrelevant to actual legislatory needs. While It might well happen that many adults aren't prepared to give consent and that some underaged individuals might be, you still need a legal benchmark that works for the majority of the population. What is the alternative? Removing age of consent will only make it so that those cases of inarguable pedophilia that get punished now will then go unaddressed; I don't think It's worth it to let that happen just that some cases of arguably-pedophilia-but-not-really might be decriminalized.

>hypocrisy
The point is he's not an hypocrite. The whole tapestry of society was built to defend the weak from the abuses of the strong, with the unspoken assumption nobody would do anything so antisocial as to make keeping it up not worth the trouble. And here come the weak abusing of it and going against the "preconceived assumptions" that are litteraly the one reason they haven't been lynched yet.
What is the inevitable result, genius?
If I was some kind of deranged pervert I would work my hardest not to call attention to myself because nooses are fucking unconfortable.

>The whole tapestry of society was built to defend the weak from the abuses of the strong
i disagree completely, society the way it is today, especially with the rise of individualism and egoism, is basically a systematized form of opression.

Anyone under the age of 18 by even a nanosecond is a child and if you even touch them you should be killed. End of story.

And you're wrong. True oppressione, as you might live to see, is what happens when those you call normies stop playing by the rules they set for themselves and actually make their thoughts about various issues known. That's the reason the political and intellectual classes have tried for fucking millennia to give them as little say about what happens and what they are supposed to be doing as possible.
You're aware I'm sure that western africans believe in witches. What do you think happens there when they let their displeasure at a supposed witch known?
The whole system as it is is a web of compromises litteraly made so that normies won't chimp out.
You're destroying it and painting a bullseye on yourself.

That's literally a meme invented by the press of a country we helped gain independance because we wouldn't join them in their retarded Iraq war. 18 years later it turns out not joining was the smart move. So I suppose I should thank you for the compliment.

Btw that flag is actually the color of the French monarchy. People would wave it in sign that they had lost to the King of France and were willing ot accept his terms. You can't even mock the French without indirectly referencing their record of military victory. Pretty sloppy t.b.h.

>no Houllebeqc
Based.

>you still need a legal benchmark that works for the majority of the population
No you don't, cases can be judged on the basis of what actually occurred, who can give consent is an open question... you're just scared of a slippery slope towards everyone thinking it's ok to sodomize children which I doubt will occur since opinions seem to be on the harsh side more than anything

>you're just scared of a slippery slope
Which is reasonable since our society has been slipping down every slope for the last 100 years.
>case by case
It would be a litteral nightmare and you would be brought to court for flirting with a shy 22 years old with paranoid parents. Just have one hard fucking rule.

>That's the reason the political and intellectual classes have tried for fucking millennia to give them as little say about what happens and what they are supposed to be doing as possible.
so what you're saying is that something is only "right" because the majority agrees on it ? on the same way, human sacrifices were accepted on some societies. That is, until you know who colonized them and killed everyone. who was "right"? you see where im getting here?

>that text
Tell me this is some fake meme pasta and not something from a real darkweb forum

I recall a post on here which said (to paraphrase)
>be post-war French leftist intellectuals
>go on and on about how everything right is bad, doomed to fail, communism is inevitable, left wing is the future, etc.
>deGaulle comes to power
>he does a great job, France revitalized and self-confidence restored
>faced with the prospect that you might have to admit you were wrong about the right wing
>instead triple down and go on a verbose intellectual adventure to deconstruct reality itself rather than admit your fault

>you see where im getting here?
a rhetorical argument?

That sounds like something out of a 60s French comic honestly. Would be kekworthy if someone had the motivation to draw it.
Though in Fairness De Gaulle was already in power in the 60s and left soon after 1968 so it's not so clear th chronology holds-up.

there is no objective morality

Ridiculous ad hominem. No I'm not saying anything like that, because "What the majority thinks" (unless when warped by specific circumstances) tends to follow a natural sort of morality based on those behaviours that make more sense statistically and biologically for the community to flourish. Instincts get formalized into rules, and This doesn't change just because occasionally aberrant behaviour like slavery or human sacrifice gets formalized too due to circumstances such as extreme convenience of free labour or your society being an agrarian civilization in a jungle and therefore ever on the verge of demographic collapse (respectivelly).
If You dont believe in this natural morality, think about how every freaking person outside of the modern West and china for different reasons reacts to an abortionist. Surely you won't deny the obvious darwian subtext; which has litteraly kept whole civilizations afloat.

its real

That's only true if truth can be true. If you believe religion truth is untrue unless you wish it to be.

Just fucking read The Abolition of Man allready.

Morality is those things that you feel bad about doing towards your in-group, being bad

If I wanted to listen to the ramblings of a senile retard I would go to the old folk's home.

What do you know about humanity?
Based on that which is more probable?

>Morality is those things that you feel bad about doing
And you feel bad about things because of how your brain is structured. Some people don't feel bad at all about anything, no matter how "immoral" you personally might find an action.

Fuck. Is it taken straight from the source or did it turn up during some kind of FBI investigation when the guy who wrote it was caught? The latter would make me feel much better.

>Some people don't feel bad at all about anything
It's not the existence of morality's fault that you're a sociopath with no in-group

Then die when your autism finally makes the mob furiously angry with you.
I did what my coscience required of me.

at least I see why Yea Forums defends these pseuds

Well the problem is I'm a retard and I have this prediction to ignoring reality in favor of escapism towards false beliefs such as religion and morality so I would believe not the most probable thing but rather what would make me undergo less psychic trauma.

If every single human being was genetically engineered to be a sociopath, would morality still exist? There is only one right answer.

>The latter would make me feel much better.
Why? its just words. And no, no one was caught, it was taken from an old forum post

>religion is escapism
Religion is rubbish at being escapism. You have to actually follow the rules or it won't let you "escape" from anything.
It would probably add to your list of things to escape from, actually.
Might as well take it seriously then.

>Something thats constantly changing based on outside circumstances
>Objective

Obviously. Spooks are too busy staging school shootings and spying on anonymous image boards to do their actual job.
Isn't that True, FBI agent reading this?

Well that guy needs to be found and tortured to death.

for what? because of a text? are you also in favor of banning books that offend you?

Anyone who would condone, argue for, or allow having sex or wanting to have sex with children under the age of 18 should be killed, preferably painfully. No exceptions.

As objective as the superstructure of your neurology can be. Perfected in 1 milion years of Algorythmical genetic and social trial and error. The Monkey knows what it needs to do and It's ever efficient and ruthless.

>if every human being had this psychological abnormality that caused them to be blind to this one component of human cognition that in the real world almost everyone perceives and behaves in the context of, would that one component of cognition still exist?
Just because it proceeds from our cognition instead of the physical laws of the universe doesn't make it any less "objective". There doesn't have to be some equation proving that murdering your mom is bad in any given cubic meter of deep space for that to be objectively bad in the context of reality as it manifests for all but a small percentage of the population

your objectives: ook ook me make other monkeys happy
my objectives: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

>Why? its just words.
If it were only a LARP it would be merely a bad taste Yea Forums joke in the usual style. But if the guy is talking from experience (as it seems, you have to admit) it's highly distrubing.

The position of the Sun is constantly changing based on outside physical quantities, but it's still an objective thing.

It's like Pol Pot was right.

Attached: 1530372923483.jpg (457x640, 44K)

Please keep the scattershot to /pol/ until it gets refined and you can deploy it in a more situation-appropriate way

Almost as if.

>it's highly distrubing
lmao if that's highly disturbing for you, you are sheltered as fuck

>Why are frenchies so desperate to destroy any sort of estabilished order in societal interactions?

Meme law perpetuated by Hollywood based on (at the time) a social rule around for less than 50 years=established order
>They're the equivalent

Oh boy! A trash comparison made by a dilettante! Can't wait!

>of that weak and punny middle-class anarchist in college that wouldn't last a week in an actual anarchist society without getting killed or willingly becoming a pawn for those that would eventually ascend to power.

This doesn't make sense at all and just highlights how you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The French are coping ideologues with no skin in the game? Have you read(more accurate question) a history book covering literally any European topic in the last 1000 years? France is the strong Chad who's fucking your teachers and oneitus, plotting a revolution while you and your ugly friends try to copy his pick up lines for sloppy seconds and eventually support the revolution to avoid him coming after you. Disgusting anglos
>Structured society=DA """"""""""WEST""""""""""""
>inevitable result of Christian thought and euro philosophy is not Christian thought and euro philosophy
Kys
Pathetic pol cope. Of course you retards would find this funny, you fags can literally only think in simplistic memes that good gives you easy answers. That's why your countries philosophical tradition is trash
>De Gaulle
>Does a great job

Ps participated in LGBT without much complaints and were an important part of it. Then government threatened to reduce the LGBT funding so they kicked out the Ps (or at least pretended to do so).

>This talk about death by dismemberment of a little girl is upsetting for me
>LOL YOU SHELTERED BITCH
At some point you MUST ask yourself If you are the problem, user.

I live in America. I've seen people come into the hospital with much much worse than that. People lock their children in closets full of shit and piss and just throw in food and water through a hole.

>into the hospital
A friend medfag? I salute you; But You have to understand that not everyone shares in the Mysteries of our profession.

>pathetic pol [sic] cope
Give me a better summation of deGaulle's reign then

I mean i kind of agree with him, reading text, even seeing pictures and videos online, it's kind of a meme. Witnessing violence in real life is very different.

Should I become a nurse anesthetist or a PA

Depends on what you want to do. Try and get experience shadowing so you can see if you'd actually want to do it.

Did you read the
>if he talks from experience
part? Here the assumption is the guy knows what he's talking about because he's researcher the specifics of fucking children under 8.
Are you claiming you've done or seen what's described in that text or are you just trying a bit too hard from Yea Forums edgy points?

>outside of a few mystics and moralists the only human reaction to disgust is to seek to remove the source
Based

>History is always the funniest story.
You don't study history faggot because it isn't funny
I bet you think we need history so we don't make the same mistakes
I bet you look for similarities with contemporary issues when reading a history book

Anyone with a basic college education in human anatomy could tell you that yes it is true, children under 8 do indeed have thinner tissues and softer cartilage so colon perforation would probably happen if you stuck something in their vaginal canal such as a penis.

Yeah but we're talking about the implication that there is a real action behind the text. The text alone is merely Yea Forums weirdness, the actual knowledge that it suggests is the disturbing thing.

I would go nurse anesthesist It's a more specialized job and more sought out. Also It's an interesting field which I would say beats the general approach of PA out.

>The whole tapestry of society was built to defend the weak from the abuses of the strong
This is Hobbesian nonsense. Society is always a few people on top who do basically whatever the fuck they want, and the pyramid extends downward in a similarly arbitrary fashion. Mohammed raped a 9 year old girl and 2 billion people follow him. There are tribes where all the adult men frequently rape every boy starting from before puberty.

This thread is pure reddit, the ebin moral crusaders expressing their righteous outrage.

That's not what I asked you though, do you think one is being sheltered for not having witnessed what is described in this text?
Also it's not merely about having witnessed it (or its consequences), it's about finding it only slightly disturbing or not disturbing at all.

>Society is always a few people on top who do basically whatever the fuck they want
Did I fucking stutter?
>That's the reason the political and intellectual classes have tried for fucking millennia to give them as little say about what happens and what they are supposed to be doing as possible.

>rape
Rape is a social construct. It certainly wasn't considered rape at the time. Perhaps 500 years in the future all sex will be considered rape and you will be posthumously declared a rapist for having sex at all.

When I was younger such posts might have disturbed me. But once you've seen everything possible nothing really disturbs you anymore.

Your account society is no less a caricature than the description you deride. Society is not just about top vs bottom, in fact what people at the very top do has often very little consequences on your life.
It's still true that social life is made of a big network of mutually balanced compromises. A lot of people get fucked hard by it. But a lot of people live decent lives through it.

Where do you work?

Sexuality in itself is of course one of the most common things, but sexuality may lead you to treating others as a mere means. So it can lead you down the path of immorality.

They monitor my posts so I can't say.

based, and dare i say it, redpilled