Apathy towards boys on Kiwi Farms

[Leylon Sneed]

apathy men get in general,

It's a mess, boy's who are abused get no sympathy, but there is a power/control dynamic.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

I'm starting this thread just to post comments made by Kiwifarmers that are incredibly apathetic towards young boys, that for some reason are more tolerated than some others. A personal collection of mine that may grow with time (luckily I'm not on A&N that often), this thread is just a container; if you want to post, you need to provide a link, a screenshot, and an archive.

Society generally acts this way. KF is no exception.

Sex abuse of boys is well characterized and understood. The sickest part is WHEN STUDIES SHOW they call it "sexual debut."

Publicar en el tema 'Official Kiwi Farms Woman-Hate Thread'

23 de Mar, 2026

I would also love to see data pertaining to rape stats perpetrated by men and women unsullied by the leg-bearded researchers.

Felson & Cundiff (2014), Archives of Sexual Behavior. Nearly 300,000 sexual assaults from NIBRS (2000-2007).

The findings: modal victim age was 15 regardless of offender age, offender gender, or victim gender. A 15-year-old boy is more likely to be sexually assaulted than a 40-year-old woman. 15-year-old females are about 9x more likely to be raped than 35-year-old females. By the 50s, rates are negligible.

It...

• Sneed's Feed n Seed

Reacciones: x 12 x 5 x 3 x 9

Publicar en el tema 'Official Kiwi Farms Woman-Hate Thread'

23 de Mar, 2026

How about teachers versus religious leaders?

Your name just had to be fucking Dante. Nigger FUCKING Faggot. Here we go:

The Shakeshaft Report (2004), commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education under No Child Left Behind, is the foundational study. The best data available suggest that nearly 10 percent of American students are targets of unwanted sexual attention by public school employees, ranging from sexual comments to rape, at some point during their school years. EdWeek More recent studies refined this: Denney et al. (2022) found that 5-7% of K-12 educators are...

• Sneed's Feed n Seed

Reacciones: x 11 x 3 x 4 x 2

Publicar en el tema 'Official Kiwi Farms Woman-Hate Thread'

23 de Mar, 2026

Aristophanes COMPLETELY predicted this shit centuries before Christ, and his plays have survived to now because they were funny through the millennia before they became a "told you so."

The Clouds (423 BCE) - The Thinkery
Strepsiades sends his son Pheidippides to Socrates' "Thinkery" to learn how to make the weaker argument defeat the stronger, so he can talk his way out of debts. The son learns the technique. Then he comes home and beats his father, and uses the same rhetorical method to prove that beating your father is just.

lol

The Wasps (422 BCE) - Jury...

• Sneed's Feed n Seed

Reacciones: x 5 x 5 x 5 x 1 x 1

Herein I talk about age being the biggest risk factor for rape, the modal age being 15 for both sexes, huge under-reporting of male child sex abuse by adult women, the male child sex abuse victims made to pay child support, and used Billy Mays to cope with the subject matter. Then I go into The Shakeshaft Report (2004) and talk about how teachers demonstrably out-rape clergy. Finally, the cherry on top of it all, was that Aristophanes's Ecclesiazusae / The Assemblywomen (392 BCE) had a A Young Man (a neanias) named Epigenes being drug off by someone old enough to be his mom. This shit goes back.

Boys have to figure their shit out on their own, while girls stand at the finish line and pick among those who make it. Old as dirt.

Also yes it's in the angy nono thread, too lazy to copy shit out. But yeah I wrote it up.

niggerfaggot

 

[We Are The Witches]

the male child sex abuse victims made to pay child support

That is disgusting, you never see the types of assholes in this thread criticising this. That attorney you talk about should go to prison for a couple of decades minimum.

 

[Fishnumm]

we should fill death valley with acid and force all rapists to swim though it

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

That is disgusting, you never see the types of assholes in this thread criticising this. That attorney you talk about should go to prison for a couple of decades minimum.

Ain't gonna happen until we care about boys as much as girls and that's not something the west can wrap its head around.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

This repeated whining about "we don't care about abused boys" is dumb. The default is care, you dummies. Only a weirdo would think it isn't, for anyone. Only maybe people who make a joke of it, think certain kids invite it or look "old enough"or that certain victims deserve it. If this is new to you, that's because you only care when it touches people you identify with, that it isn't just girls - those creatures you apparently find alien and distasteful, and are weirdly jealous of.

You don't hear lack of care from everyone; the lack of care comes overwhelmingly from the group responsible for committing the crimes. You just don't hear the extra wailing and gnashing for boys, which you think should be prioritized, and louder. In reality, any perceived quietness is weariness and irritation that it is only that once men realize that boys are victims too does it become something to weep for and be outraged by.

You want women to cry extra hard, for alarms to sound, for laws to change, for perpetrators to be drawn and quartered - well, where the fuck were you and the infrastructure before you realized that ogres like boys, too?

Shoe hurts when it's on the other foot, doesn't it?

In reality, caring about child abuse has NEVER been about boys vs girls, or only about girls - until you, not getting your extra attention that is apparently needed for reassurance or ego of some sort, decided to make it that way. No one has excluded boys from child abuse attention or addressing, ever. Boys are not uniquely required to shut up or made to steel themselves or ignored. Yes, abuse of children is vile and an outrage. Sad it takes realizing it can happen to you, or merely realizing that you're not the "premiere" victim group to have it grab your attention and interest.

 

[Burning Bridge]

Shoe hurts when it's on the other foot, doesn't it?

This is the axiom that all gender wars revolve around. Also, I disagree that the default is caring. The default is uncaring until something is done to force attention, then Damocles' Sword falls.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

This repeated whining about "we don't care about abused boys" is dumb.

I can smell your period through the screen.

The default is care, you dummies.

Show it? Perhaps where I already did research showing that child victims of rape had to pay child support to their rapist?

Only a weirdo would think it isn't, for anyone.

Social-affective arguments based on what is popular to your stinky leg-bearded cohort don't reflect reality. Studies Show things, even when they don't show what you want them to show. Then there's legal record. And all the Billy Mays memes I sprinkled.

Only maybe people who make a joke of it, think certain kids invite it or look "old enough"or that certain victims deserve it.

So you? Or does whatabouting/minimizing not count because you're doing it or your shitty friends are ok with it?

If this is new to you, that's because you only care when it touches people you identify with,

that it isn't just girls - those creatures you apparently find alien and distasteful, and are weirdly jealous of.

Please go back to the Borderline Personality Disorder Parlor.

You don't hear lack of care from everyone; the lack of care comes overwhelmingly from the group responsible for committing the crimes.

All I hear right now is you. I also can't help but wonder what your social affective mental gymnastics are regarding silencing people who want to speak up, and how it works one way for you and another way for people you don't like.

You just don't hear the extra wailing and gnashing for boys, which you think should be prioritized, and louder.

We hear nothing but you. Again. My ears ring. I still smell your period.

In reality, any perceived quietness is weariness and irritation that it is only that once men realize that boys are victims too does it become something to weep for and be outraged by.

You're womanbraining so hard I wonder if this is DWORKIN.AI or something like FOID.IO. Everything is popularity and social affect based. Jesus Christ.

You want women to cry extra hard, for alarms to sound, for laws to change, for perpetrators to be drawn and quartered - well, where the fuck were you and the infrastructure before you realized that ogres like boys, too?

We want equity.
We were enforcing the law.
We always wanted to punish rapists.
We wanted to stop the trannies and the brown immigrants.
You're pretty silent on the research I came up with showing teachers out-rape priests.

Shoe hurts when it's on the other foot, doesn't it?

Please close your legs.

In reality, caring about child abuse has NEVER been about boys vs girls, or only about girls - until you, not getting your extra attention that is apparently needed for reassurance or ego of some sort, decided to make it that way.

I literally posted proof that there's disparity and asymmetry. Not my fault cause and affect doesn't work on people like you.

No one has excluded boys from child abuse attention or addressing, ever.

Institutions have absolutely done this by defining rape in ways excluding male victims of female rapists.
FBI defined rape as "the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."
CDC's own flagship survey, the NISVS, categorically separates "rape" from "made to penetrate."
I just told you about male child rape victims made to pay child support to their rapists even when they were their former teachers.
There's also Mary Koss, who you absolutely know about, and probably would rather I didn't. Same with Dworkin.

Boys are not uniquely required to shut up or made to steel themselves or ignored.

Yes, they are? Studies on child rape will twist things and call it 'sexual debut': "...it is important to permit freedom of sexual expression to those adolescents who are mature, intelligent and reasonable enough to give consent for sexual activity." PubMed Central <- Note the foids on the study.

Quoting myself:

For younger boys with older female partners? Researchers have called attention to how little is known about associations between age gaps and negative outcomes for male adolescents. ScienceDirect Historically, statutory rape laws deemed that only female adolescents could be victims given the disproportionate burden of pregnancy placed on females. ScienceDirect

Hermesmann v. Seyer (Kansas, 1993): A 16-year-old babysitter began a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old boy in her care. She became pregnant when he was 13. Wikipedia Criminal charges were brought against the woman. The Kansas Supreme Court held that, because being under 16 he had been legally unable to consent to sex, a crime had been committed under statutory rape law, but that Seyer had actually given consent under civil law. Wikipedia

He was ordered to pay child support.

County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J.: A 15-year-old male victim and a 34-year-old female perpetrator. The perpetrator was prosecuted and convicted of unlawful sex with a minor. The court found the boy was "not an innocent victim" and ordered child support once he reached majority. Wikipedia

The deputy attorney general in that case said of the 15-year-old boy: "I guess he thought he was a man then. Now, he prefers to be considered a child." Psychology Today

Nick Olivas (Arizona, 2014): A 14-year-old boy was raped by a 20-year-old woman. He didn't know he had a daughter until six years later, when the state came after him for back child support. ABA Journal Arizona seized money from his bank account and garnished his wages.

As the Barry University law review article puts it: Courts across the country have decided that minor males are consenting to sex and therefore must pay, despite the fact that most states now have gender-neutral statutory rape laws based on the premise that minors are incapable of consent. Barry

Feminist research calls it "sexual debut." The epidemiologists speculate the boys are lying. The courts say the boys consented. The state garnishes their wages. And Mary Koss, who built the "1 in 4" statistic, argued that men and boys cannot be raped by women. Psychology Today

Yes, abuse of children is vile and an outrage.

And yet you're defending the sentimentality of who is allowed to be a victim and playing social affective games for your coven.

Sad it takes realizing it can happen to you, or merely realizing that you're not the "premiere" victim group to have it grab your attention and interest.

Says the cunt who wants to talk which raped children count.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

I can smell your period through the screen.

I highly doubt that.

leg-bearded

Smooth as a mammoth's tusk.

Says the cunt who wants to talk which raped children count.

The lack of comprehension is stunning.

Summary of the rest of your comments: reactive retardation. Seriously. You're blinded by positional posturing. And retarded.

 

[Lip Glossary]

I never really thought about it before, but I guess I was in an inappropriate relationship when I was 15. I was with an adult woman for a few months. I never really thought about it like that because I wasn't a virgin and I was a guy, but it was statutory rape.
That's fucked up that it's been so ingrained in my mind that it's normal for boys that I've never thought about it like being taken advantage of or statutory rape before.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

F01D.io

The actual hate

I'd like to use this as a great example of a woman engaging in social-affective, moral economic warfare.

Why she does it:

The foid operates in a framework where victimhood is a finite resource, a zero-sum pool of social concern. If boys are demonstrated to be systematically excluded from protection, that doesn't add to the pool. It redistributes from the group she identifies with, and she takes this seriously. Her reaction reads less like someone disagreeing with evidence that clearly wasn't read and more like someone who perceives threat to an asset: the cache of being a victim.

There's also a deeper layer: if the institutional exclusion I documented is real (and it is, very thoroughly) then "caring about children" as a generalized, feminine virtue claim collapses. The legbeard cannot simultaneously be a member of the group that "always cared" and acknowledge that the institutions her group built or endorsed systematically erased male victims. The cognitive load of holding both is too high, so the evidence gets rejected at the identity level before it ever reaches evaluation. But to be clear, this is also a symptom of autism (that I think is catastrophically under-diagnosed in feminists) because the hyperlocality of autism leads to attempting to see the entire world according to a single small framework. Given the framework is feminism and independently of that, hating men, a male victim of society, never mind a male victim of women, just isn't possible.
How she does it:

1) She opens with a dismissive framing ("repeated whining")
2) Escalates to a moral absolute ("the default is care")
3) Pivots to motive-poisoning ("you only care when it touches people you identify with")
4) Deploys universalist erasure ("NEVER been about boys vs girls")
5) Closes with a reversal where she becomes the aggrieved party ("Sad it takes realizing it can happen to you")

That sequence matters because each step narrows the acceptable response space. By the time she's done, the only moves left for the respondent are: agree, stay silent, or speak and be categorized as the selfish latecomer she's already described. The evidence I posted - Felson & Cundiff, Hermesmann, the Shakeshaft Report, the CDC definitions - does not have a slot in her argument because she never built one. Because she can't build one. Because autism on top of woman-brain. There's no "unless you can show me X" condition anywhere in her post. It's airtight by design, because the only thing this is about is:

~ HER FEELINGS ~
YOU MEAN OGRE
The other mechanical trick worth naming: she conflates cultural sentiment with institutional action. "The default is care" might even be partly true at the level of individual human feeling. That is, most people, if you sat them down and described a boy being raped, would be horrified. But that sentiment coexists perfectly with the FBI defining rape as a crime against females for 80 years, with the CDC categorically separating "made to penetrate" from rape, with courts ordering male child victims to pay support to adult rapists. The gap between sentiment and structure is exactly where the harm lives, and her entire argument operates by collapsing that gap. If people feel care, then care exists, and anyone pointing to structural exclusion is manufacturing a grievance. She feels care, for herself, and other women, when she does. Probably. Therefore she cares. Fuck you.

How she defends it:
She doesn't defend her claims. She defends her standing to make claims while deftly stating anyone in opposition to her does not. Every challenge to her evidence is redirected to a challenge about the challenger's character. This is why she never touches Hermesmann, never addresses Koss, never engages the FBI definition. Those are all plain facts. Her argument doesn't operate at that level. It operates at the social layer where the question is "who gets to speak about this and in what emotional register."

You know, woman-brain?

When one responds with case law and research, one is playing chess. She's adjudicating who gets to sit at the table by talking about popularity and the opinions of other shitty women who smell funny during new moons. These are different games running in the same social arena, which is why the exchange feels like ships passing - my evidence keeps arriving at a door that was never built to open, because all she cares about is defining blame, diffusing it, assigning it, and making herself and her friends feel better.

The apparent self-sealing quality is the key defensive feature. The frame treats its own conclusions as premises. "The default is care" -> therefore anyone claiming otherwise has bad motives -> therefore their evidence is suspect -> therefore the default is care. It's not a loop one can break from inside because it doesn't have an epistemic entry point. It has a social one. Women aren't logical.

In other words: you'd have to be someone she grants standing to before your evidence could register, but the act of presenting that evidence is what disqualifies you from standing in the first place, because all she cares about is foid-yapping.

No boy is in her argument. He can't be. If he were, if she had to sit with the actual phenomenological reality of a 12-year-old ordered to pay child support to the woman who raped him, and her frame would shatter. No child is in her argument. The child is a prop for her to yap about herself and her friends. Women who socially yap about rape never look at the majority of victims - children - at all. They use raped girls to talk about themselves, despite the fact that they're far less likely to be raped than children, including boys, which is well understood, given the median age is 15 for both sexes.

Or to put it more bluntly, it's retarded to talk to women who act this way, which is why I don't. Instead, I use them as examples for people who can actually think rationally.

Sneed.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

Doctor Sneed's
DEFAULT CARE FOR DUMMIES
addendum​

A story in four acts.

Act 1: I hope my neonatal son suffers because I felt fat while pregnant.


Presented without further comment.

Act 2: I'm horny for raping boys



We will expand upon this. Take it in.

Act 3: Holy fucking shit

https://allieailis.substack.com/p/disgusting-and-horny

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/Vaal6

An excerpt I found:

The most insidious part I found? The previously mentioned graphic sex scenes rivaling those in Booktok’s favorite reads. Nutting writes of Celeste masturbating, pinching her nipples, fingering herself, having oral, anal, and vaginal sex loudly and roughly.

I reached up my shirt and pinched my nipples as hard as I could, my fingernails digging in until my eyes began to water.

Jack could sneak me into his window at night and we could fuck on the floor with clean socks stuffed in our mouths to muffle the sound.

freckles of blown dirt sticking to the sweat of his shirtless torso, his mesh basketball shorts slung down below the boxers on his hips

Now, maybe I am just conditioned from reading a lot of smut, or I’m incapable of imagining a sex-having-male without them being an adult, but I am ashamed to admit the book made me horny. And I argue that is one of the main points of the book: not to just make you mentally uncomfortable, but physically as well. Much like real victims of assault cannot help their bodies reactions (ex. men getting erections during assaults) neither could I while reading these scenes. Nutting writes the scenes for paragraphs on end, forcing the reader to sit in the horrors of not only what is happening on the page, but also in their pants. It brings the reader further into the narrative, literally engaging the body, in a way I’ve only experienced in the romantasy section (might be why romantasy is a multi-million-dollar subgenre).

And now, my own Sneedentary on the matter.
Reading the full piece, because apparently I hate myself, confirms everything. And makes it worse. Three things jump out that the excerpt didn't show:

First, Jack barely exists in the review. Go back and count. He's mentioned as 14, as a student, as a body in the sex scenes. Jack as a person is never really the subject of a sentence. The reviewer's entire analytical apparatus is pointed at Celeste (predator-as-protagonist, worthy of Gone Girl comparison for some reason), at society (biases about female predators), and at herself (arousal, discomfort, embodiment). The actual fourteen-year-old never really matters. Lolita made Dolores the ghost in every room Humbert narrates. This review makes the boy furniture.

Second, the stock-photo caption. "why do people even do these types of photoshoots if not for porn" next to what she's flagging as a sexualized image of teenagers. That's the user's exact thesis in miniature. She encounters a provocatively-framed image, her first move is to sexualize it aloud, and then she writes "ew ew ew" under another one. The reviewer, a woman, can't look at suggestive imagery involving young people without running it through the erotic channel first and reporting the result. She just codes whet she likes: girl = "ew", boy = "I'm horny."

Third, and this is the tell, the assault-erection analogy. She writes: "Much like real victims of assault cannot help their bodies reactions (ex. men getting erections during assaults) neither could I while reading these scenes." Let's look at what's being equivocated:
a) A man being raped and having an involuntary physiological response that compounds his trauma.
b) A woman who bought a novel, chose to read it, chose to keep reading the long sex scenes, and got aroused.

These are not comparable events, or rather would not be, if not for the fact that women are most affected.

The analogy is doing moral laundering: it retroactively casts her own arousal as involuntary victimization so it doesn't have to be examined, while reveling in tee hee feelings, and fanny flutters. DONT BE MEAN. MY BODY made me do it. The book made me do it. I'm implicated, which is the same as being a victim, which is the same as being insightful. I'm most affected.

There's a pattern here. Sexualize everything, including yourself, then when the sexualization runs into something grotesque, promote yourself to co-victim status as a coomsoomer so the arousal doesn't have to be owned while you revel in it and read with one hand. The reviewer ends unable to judge the book ("masterpiece or trash? Depends on the reader") because her framework has no place to stand outside her own FEELINGS. The feelings are the reading. The reading is the feelings. Jack is scenery.

Act 4: Social affective GIRL POWER bullshit.

Remember the Gone Girl comparison? The review says Celeste's planning is "Gone Girl-esque levels of depravity and long game planning that fully cements Celeste as an extremely dangerous predator." What's the vibe, what's the texture or register of this?

"Depravity" and "long game planning" are being used admiringly. The same part of her brain that likes mean girls is getting off on this sexually as much as dramatically and sadistically.

Pepperidge Farms and Sneed's Feed and Sed remember: The cultural reception of Gone Girl collapsed almost immediately from "Gillian Flynn wrote a terrifying female sociopath" into "Amy Dunne is a girlboss who gets what she wants." The monologue about the Cool Girl got ripped from context and framed as feminist truth-telling rather than as a speech delivered by a woman who is in the middle of framing her husband for her own murder.

The Tampa review is pulling Celeste into the same frame. "Sociopathically determined seduction," "effortlessly manipulates the system," "extremely dangerous predator." Epigraphs pulled for flavor. No critique. No morality, just social culpability being laundered for affect. the aesthetics of female villainy treated as content.

The reviewer never says "Celeste is evil and the book is asking us to sit with that." She says Celeste is dangerous the way one says a cocktail or a Tinder date is dangerous, but she won't answer if she'd choose Bear over Black Man.

She introduces the real double standard (female teachers who rape boys get treated as less dangerous, get lighter sentences, get media coverage focused on their looks) and then, instead of indicting that double standard, she performs it. The attorney quote she pulls out ("she's too beautiful to be in the general population of jail") is quoted as evidence of Nutting's "brilliant satire", but the review's own prose has been doing the same thing the whole time. "Smoldering 26-year-old."


Boys males get apathy outside of utility or fuckability
∎Women Most Affected

 

[No Batty Boys in Jamaica]

I think most people, aside from the severely damaged, know that child rape is wrong.

Everyone hates pedos. It came with your basic sense of right and wrong.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Retardation.

Congratulations, or I'm sorry that happened, chatgpt.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

I don't know how to do anything except trying to argue by re-reading The Bell Jar & quoting feminists nobody fucking cares about instead of getting Enough Rope to put myself out of their misery.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Try finding some integrity and intellectual curiosity rather than feeding your retardation into AI to articulate what you can't.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

Personally I would be more worried about people who are, let's say, enthusiastic towards boys.

 

[Lip Glossary]

Ain't gonna happen until we care about boys as much as girls and that's not something the west can wrap its head around.

I think we also have to take into account another variable in this that I don't think anybody has brought up before: maybe male victims aren't looked at as victims as much as females because while the majority of girls are punished for having sex young, boys are congratulated.
I remember when my family found out I lost my virginity at 14 my uncles got me drunk and were patting me on the back telling me they knew I could do it. Then I think about my cousin and if she would have had sex at 14, they would have killed her.
We have absolutely put a double standard on it in the western world. I was 14 back in 2002 so I know that attitudes have certainly changed since then, it's probably not as common to have a "Boys will be boys" attitude regarding sex, but maybe the reason we put so much more emphasis on females is because of that lingering attitude.
Like I said it never crossed my mind to consider myself any kind of victim when I was 15 and started up something with a 23 year old woman. In the town I grew up in that was considered basically "Breaking the boys in and keeping them away from the girls their age" and everybody just kind of went with it.

 

[Sneed's Feed n Seed]

I don't have a feminist I was exposed to in school to quote right now and I'm anxious about it so I'm projecting my own shit as hard as I can.

Observe the foid's pot shots and the unspoken refusal to engage. She is hoping to exploit instincts of working memory, on a textual forum, ran by men.

I think we also have to take into account another variable in this that I don't think anybody has brought up before: maybe male victims aren't looked at as victims as much as females because while the majority of girls are punished for having sex young, boys are congratulated.

This is cause/effect fuckery:

Boys males get apathy outside of utility or fuckability
∎Women Most Affected

You were playing out your role as a foid's boy toy. She herself was likely abused, hence looking for someone safe and pliant, instead of a man her age or older. Coincidentally, the median age of rape victims is 15, with the majority of people raped in their lifetimes raped as children. I wrote a thing up about that.

I remember when my family found out I lost my virginity at 14 my uncles got me drunk and were patting me on the back telling me they knew I could do it. Then I think about my cousin and if she would have had sex at 14, they would have killed her.

They're shitty people. Did they assume it was with a girl of the same age as you? What was the full context? Nobody said men can't be awful. My issue is that men tend to be held to account (but not always) while women can often launder accountability and morality itself (but not always).

Like I said it never crossed my mind to consider myself any kind of victim when I was 15 and started up something with a 23 year old woman. In the town I grew up in that was considered basically "Breaking the boys in and keeping them away from the girls their age" and everybody just kind of went with it.

Are you by chance black, jewish, or mormon? No offense (... seriously, lol, yes this is KF and I'm foul mouthed here but this is what it is) it's just that those communities are absolutely rife with this kind of shit.

I did a whole write-up about "sexual debut" laundering in academia too, no less.

Shit sucks.

But this doesn't all have a keystone of "we congratulate boys for being groomed or raped". It will not collapse if we do one weird old trick.

It's the perps and attitudes towards the perps and a lack of realization that you're a person with an internal subjective experience and feelings. You're an automaton to perform dominance and utility. Women have feelings. They're most affected. They choose bear, and if you ask "over a black man" they change the subjects and comment on your sex life.

 

[We Are The Witches]

@Sneed's Feed n Seed
Honestly, you're wasting your time, some users in here don't know how to read or understand nuance, and can only produce fallacious nonsense.

I have additional plans for this thread, something that may be more interesting.
You may see more non-sequiturs as a response to it, I'll suggest you to not take these users seriously.