>>82081508Never said illegal, but it's entirely understandable why people have an issue with this and don't want the guys who did it to be part of society. As far as
>post pubertyIs concerned; Boys hit puberty at around 12-14. Should be allow boys that age, since they are physically mature, to join the military and die in wars?
>>82081522>Five star beret with no unit patchMy soul
>so what about waiting until the moment you are married to have sex with your wifeIt is expected that a couple be attracted to each other but abstain from sex until they have made a commitment. This inherently creates a barrier against promiscuity and single parenthood.
It is not accepted, nor should it be acceptable, for an adult past 18, 19, MAYBE 20 years old to be attracted to 16 or 17 year olds. They are still considered children, stoll are not granted the agency to make their won choices in regards to voting, military service, alcohol or tobacco consumption, and sex. Aside from that, assuming that the Tay debacle is legit and not some weird Jewish money laundering scheme then the men paying for it are likely 30s, 40s, 50s+.
Many people from here will being up the power/experience standpoint which is somewhat valid, but I'm going to highlight the idea of eugenics. If all 18-early 20s women are taken by men in the late adulthood, what happens to younger males? More to the point, why allow men who obviously failed to attract a mate in their youth to take women from appropriately aged young men?
>>82083597>payed more taxes than 90% of this board>muh taxesZuckerberg pays more taxes than you and he's a kike that is actively ruining Western Civilization. That's a stupid fucking argument and you know it.