The Communist (masked NWO) goal is to subvert values and reduce moral standards. Makes it easier to corrupt. So they try to reduc girls to sluts, brainwash that feminism is all about empowerment. Over time this reduces the idea of family, isolates people from each other, creates people who can be manipulated into hate because they are damaged and they seek revenge to relieve the pain.
Advance is indeed a globalist tool and you can be sure everything they touch is corrupted.
Hookers are the only women deserving respect. The article is promoting legalization. The US is completely retarded and also unjust in that regard. Sugar daddies are legal, but prostitutes are not? Prostitution is illegal for moral reasons, but legal if you put a director and movie cameras around her payola-sex? This makes no sense.
I learned about the issue at school, in economics, including law (like go see the doctor every two weeks, age of consent, which was 18 for females, 19 for males, hookers don't pay taxes, because government must not profit from lewd activity, not legal for teachers, lawyers, doctors, etc.) We also learned where the examination in the city took place and that the (large) cafe close to the place was always filled with professionals waiting for their turn. So I went there to check out them ladies what was surprisingly boring although you could tell who the more expensive ones were. Some hookers apparently knew that I knew. I was 15 or 16 in 9th grade. The economics teacher was female and a feminist/commie, but the matter was not her initiative, at least not alone, because there was a chapter on prostitution in the economics book. The trade served as an example of how economics is not a hard science and that government regulation is not a pure economics issue or something. (There was also a passage on global drug trade. I can't remember details, because I did not pay much attention at school and almost flunked eco that year. Had to take a test after the summer break for proving that I had caught up and did.)
I just read the piece and I don't see a single instance of "promoting prostitution to teens." It was actually a pretty interested article and I don't see what's wrong with educating young people about these issues, especially in the age of OnlyFans and camming and all that shit. Knowledge is power.
I just read the piece and I don't see a single instance of "promoting prostitution to teens." It was actually a pretty interested article and I don't see what's wrong with educating young people about these issues, especially in the age of OnlyFans and camming and all that shit. Knowledge is power.
It is very telling that your weak rationalization is the best response that you could come up with. It is teen magazine that is publishing an article that promotes prostitution and other sex work. It must get tiring trying to constantly cover up your puppetmasters' criminality.
Side note I really wish the condescending trend of starting article headlines with :
Yes, ....
No,....
Would just end already. So rude.
The Communist (masked NWO) goal is to subvert values and reduce moral standards. Makes it easier to corrupt. So they try to reduc girls to sluts, brainwash that feminism is all about empowerment. Over time this reduces the idea of family, isolates people from each other, creates people who can be manipulated into hate because they are damaged and they seek revenge to relieve the pain.
Advance is indeed a globalist tool and you can be sure everything they touch is corrupted.
That degeneracy should remain looked down on and continue to be prosecuted.
Hookers are the only women deserving respect. The article is promoting legalization. The US is completely retarded and also unjust in that regard. Sugar daddies are legal, but prostitutes are not? Prostitution is illegal for moral reasons, but legal if you put a director and movie cameras around her payola-sex? This makes no sense.
The magazine is published for a teen audience.
I learned about the issue at school, in economics, including law (like go see the doctor every two weeks, age of consent, which was 18 for females, 19 for males, hookers don't pay taxes, because government must not profit from lewd activity, not legal for teachers, lawyers, doctors, etc.) We also learned where the examination in the city took place and that the (large) cafe close to the place was always filled with professionals waiting for their turn. So I went there to check out them ladies what was surprisingly boring although you could tell who the more expensive ones were. Some hookers apparently knew that I knew. I was 15 or 16 in 9th grade. The economics teacher was female and a feminist/commie, but the matter was not her initiative, at least not alone, because there was a chapter on prostitution in the economics book. The trade served as an example of how economics is not a hard science and that government regulation is not a pure economics issue or something. (There was also a passage on global drug trade. I can't remember details, because I did not pay much attention at school and almost flunked eco that year. Had to take a test after the summer break for proving that I had caught up and did.)
I just read the piece and I don't see a single instance of "promoting prostitution to teens." It was actually a pretty interested article and I don't see what's wrong with educating young people about these issues, especially in the age of OnlyFans and camming and all that shit. Knowledge is power.
It is very telling that your weak rationalization is the best response that you could come up with. It is teen magazine that is publishing an article that promotes prostitution and other sex work. It must get tiring trying to constantly cover up your puppetmasters' criminality.
Did you read it? Can you show me which part of the article “promotes prostitution”?
The title
So you read the title and that’s it?