Liberals are corrupt, hateful, immoral and taking the country in the wrong direction

I don't think it's obvious I don't see it... but even if it was two layers of underwear, it's still inappropriate doesn't matter the layers- what matters to me is the posture combined with the attire and whether that is appropriate for children- if that skirt and underwear was on a straight female, and she was exposed like that I would certainly consider that completely inappropriate

 

What is the posture?

Can you explain it?

Is this how your women look when they spread their legs for you? Sitting down on a chair while trying to grab a book on the ground?

 

Yes, this posture is called a clown act with a hyper shortened skirt complete with skin tight underwear- especially clownish and inappropriate in front of children

 

From that picture can you tell if they even have a penis? Like can you even tell if there is a bulge?

 

Also, most women I know don't wear skirts 3 inches below their crotch unless they are running a business

 

The posture of bending down to grab a book?

I'm referring to the actual posture not the entire concept of men in dresses reading to kids.

Are you saying they grabbed down for the book to sexually expose children?

 

I know this is a fetish for you but leave the children out of it

 

which you confirmed by calling it rage baiting and but now backing down from that?

 

I have a question. Do you still believe the emoji wasn't placed to make people assume it was just exposed junk?

Is that how naive you are?

Also would you have know the person was wearing an additional layer of that picture wasn't shown to you?

If the emoji makes you have incomplete information then it's purpose was to explode "closeness". The purpose was to make you have an incorrect assumption.

 

I know this is a fetish for you but leave the children out of it

is it appropriate to wear a skirt 3 inches below your crotch? Ever heard the term Minor Attracted Person - are you attracted to minors ? I would hope not

 

No?

 

@fchowd0311 - I get you might be a minor attracted person and this act is considered acceptable, but it's not considered acceptable in the eyes of parents

 

No one reading in front of children needs to wear a skirt 3 inches below their crotch - sincerely, parents

 

My fetish isn't scrolling Twitter for 3 hours a day trying to find trans people wearing scantily clad clothing. I know that.

But again, would you have known without having been shown the picture without the emoji that they had an additional layer? No. You wouldn't. And your assumption would be exposed balls under a layer of sheer leggings. Regardless of whether you feel it's still inappropriate or not, at least you should understand that majority of the content you scroll down is to make you rage to engage more rather than disseminate sincere information.

 

I mean I'm not the one who sees anything sexual here. I would assume someone who sees this in a sexual way is being rizzed up in some manner. Arre you feeling hot and bothered from a dude with leggings and briefs sitting uncrossed grabbing a book?

Is it rizzing you out? you hot and bothered and projecting that feeling to children? That's rather unsettling.

 

I don't know you seem quick to defend the indefensible- there is no parent that I am aware of that is willing to have an adult wearing a skirt 3 inches above their crotch area sit in front of them wearing skin tight underwear-

hearing this passioned defense on clear inappropriateness towards children lends me to believe you could also excuse acts related to those that are considered Minor Attracted Persons ... where is the line drawn on your defense of inappropriateness

 

What was the intent of the emoji again?

 

Why is the bottom picture not enough to express your point?

 

The only thing I see is a clear inappropriate posture but for you I imagine the possibilities is unfathomable ... anything with children and inappropriate behavior seems to go in your eyes

 

Why isn't the picture on the bottom enough to make your point?