False allegation. No one is deliberately making pornography available to the 5 or 6 years old, but there is a restriction of 18 years upon the pornography.
Objection! The "age restriction" on pornography is nothing but a joke in this day and age, every child has access to pornographic sites, and if western rulers wanted them not to, they'd take the necessary measures to prevent it. But they consciously and knowingly don't.
Criticism upon it is already present in the Western societies and movies and dramas are not presenting young kids as sexual objects.
Sure, that's why with each passing day, we witness more and more of this trash in the west:
- - - - - - - - - -
Fashion Vogue Kids photos create global unrest
Fanny Arnaud
Thursday, September 11, 2014 10:49 PM
UPDATE Friday, September 12, 2014 12:21 AM
Vogue Kids created unrest around the world by posting photos of very young girls in poses deemed lascivious for its September Brazilian edition.
"The paradox is that we show such images and at the same time we point the finger at people who have desire for these young women," comments psychotherapist and sex therapist Astrid Abelé. She explains that the magazine's intention is not bad and that it is above all a mercantile logic.
However, she adds that it's okay to desire what you see most often, and therefore, it should come as no surprise that women want to look young more and more.
Since yesterday, comments have been on social media denouncing what some qualify as child pornography, reigniting the debate on the hypersexualization of children in magazines.
The photo report entitled "Shadow and Fresh Water" features young girls in underwear in potentially suggestive postures.
"The editors of Vogue Kids have a serious lack of judgment," tweeted @My_Comment.
"Malaise, these are children, not prey," @remyetco added.
“Great unease in our team when seeing these photos of Vogue Kids. What do you think?" launched the publication Châtelaine.
The magazine Vogue Paris had also created controversy in 2011 by making a series of photos of girls dressed as ladies with jewelry and high heels.
Criticisms
Brazilian newspaper CartaCapital yesterday published the disputed photos and reported on the words of author Renata Corrêa, one of the first to publicly criticize the magazine.
According to her, "pedophilia is not limited to a guy hiding behind a computer". Ms. Corrêa adds that "pedophilia is not an individual problem of a hypothetical 'pervert' but a collective problem, a business that shamelessly sells the bodies of our girls and boys."
- With the collaboration of the QMI Agency
https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2014/09/11/des-photos-de-vogue-kids-creent-un-malaise-mondial
- - - - - - - - - -
The Sexualization of Children Through Advertizing, Fashion Brands and Media
- - - - - - - - - -
How strange, religious people cry for dramas and films where kids play the roles, but they forget that their religion is thousands of times worse here while it allows the marriage and sexual activities with girls of 5 or 6 years too.
Once again, religious exegesis should be left to scholars of religious law. I have yet to see a dominant current of religious scholarship endorse such practices.
Besides: I am simply showing that advocates of masonic secularism have no leg to stand on when trying to single out religious tradition, in particular Islam and Christianity.
Off course sex educational classes are compulsory and they should not be optional as danger are already present in the societies.
And so sexualization of children is compulsory in the west.
Same dangers are also present in Islamic countries (or perhaps children are even more unsafe in Islamic countries as they have been raped at mass level in the Madaris too), but Islamic societies just turn blind eyes from these facts.
When someone is sexually abused, it does not matter how many "classes" they previously attended, does it? This will not shield them from any risks like pregnancy and so on.
But when children, who are sexually innocent, are exposed to such garbage at very young age in school, they become sexualized, which they shouldn't.
False. It it about making kids aware of the dangers of sex.
This is all about depriving children of their innocence and pushing boundless, uncontrolled sexual habits in society, thereby undermining marriage, healthy family life and tradition.
Homosexuality is present in Human Nature.
Religious system is at fault here and it goes against the Nature.
There's a difference between homosexuality and homosexualism, the latter being a militant political ideology which considers the natural social prevalence of heterosexuality as "discrimination" and advocates active promotion of homosexuality as well as gender identity confusion, including through misplaced "sexual education" of children, as well as same sex marriage and child adoption by homosexual couples.
Which is just another targeted attack on the traditional institution of marriage and family, an institution that in practically every human culture, has been at the heart of society and law since time immemorial.
Look, no one teaches kids in Pakistan or Iran to be homosexual, but all kids are taught Islamic teachings which portray homosexuality as the biggest sin etc. But despite all this religious brainwashing, automatically Muslims involves in homosexual activities, while this thing was present in their nature.
Dissociation of biological gender and subjective gender identity is not taught to Iranian or Pakistani kids. Homosexual relations are not presented to them as one legitimate option among others, worthy of being "tried out". Hence why homosexuality remains a fringe phenomenon in these societies. Hence why there is no "child adoption" business where well off "married" homosexual couples get hold of children from some poor exploited woman in India or Africa forced to rent out her belly to this effect. Children which are then resold on internet market places should the homosexual couple get tired of them.
Off course it is the responsibilities of the marriage which breaks the young girls.
Religious marriage means that Vali (guardian) of the girl could marry her to even an old guy without her consent.
And then religious marriage means that husband could compel the child wife to provide him the sexual services at his demand, and her consent means nothing. She has to let her be used as sexual object even if he hates her husband.
Thousands of years of Tradition suggest otherwise. If a woman has a valid reason to hate her husband, such as being mistreated by him, then she can ask for divorce according to Islamic law.
And this is totally different from the sexual enjoyment that is allowed in the Western countries. This is fully controlled sexual activity where no one could compel the young girl to provide other the sexual service.
And it is so much controlled that even if during sex, girls says NO MORE, then it is the end of the sexual activity.
What exactly is "controlled" in the depraved western model of sexuality, where increasingly, people require every sort of abnormal practice and perversion to derive pleasure? And even that satisfaction is illusory.
This is a conjecture without any proof.
It's based on evidence.
There were many cultures in the world who were not even wearing the clothes and who were living totally naturally for thousands of years. But they didn't produce any zombies for thousands of years.
Heck, even thousands of slave women were present in the Islamic society with their naked breasts. Religion didn't allow the poor slave women to take hijab (which it was considered only the honour and right of the free Muslim women).
Nudity isn't the issue here. The institution of marriage and the nuclear family structure are.
This is the worst excuse, as we have not said a single word at our own, but these are the clear WORDS of Fatwas of ALL Mujtahids of Islam of the last 1400 years that even a breastfeeding baby could be married to any person (even if he is an old man) by the guardian without her consent.
And then husband is allowed to undress her and to kill her naked body and to rub his penis in her thighs and to make her to masturbate him .... These are the EXACT words of these Fatwas, and not a single word has been added by us.
No, we could not leave this matter as the so called legitimate religious authorities of last 1400 years have already given their Fatwa. And these religious authorities and the religion they represent, both are criminals in our eyes in this issue. So, why should we leave them and not to criticize them for this shameful ruling?
Minors are reading this website. Reported for pornographic content.
Islamic law is not credibly explained by a biased forum user. But by religious authorities. As good as none of whom corroborate any the crazy things cited above.
All these are criminals and involved in these activities against the State and it's law.
All these are the direct result of the lifestyles promoted by western secular regimes. All these offenders were raised by liberal standards.
These so called time-tested Traditions are marriage of baby brides, raping dozens of slave women after buying them.
The tradition in question is the nuclear family structure as the basic cell of human society. Which a totalitarian cabal of anti-specist masonic-inspired oligarchs are intending to uproot and obliterate.
hahaha
Religion practiced slavery for 1400 years. And then the non-religious WEST kicked the Islamic countries and compelled them to sign the international treaty to abolish the slavery. Only after this pressure by non-religious West, the Islamic countries gave up the Halal of Sharia i.e. slavery.
I don't care what misguided rulers in the Islamic world did - their actions in this regard were not accurately reflecting the precepts of their faith.
Western states were historically the most involved in slavery, colonialism and mass murder / genocide of natives worldwide.
They are the criminal gangs and not the State Law.
Such criminal gangs are also active in Islamic countries and diamond markets are present in all Muslim countries.
Worse criminal gangs are actually holding the reins of power in the west. Criminal gangs which abuse children and are composed of ruling elites. The Epstein affair revealed it all, and prior to it the Dutroux affair in Belgium, despite massive efforts by the courts to cover up the whole extent of the truth.
What blatant contradiction?
What I stated, it is knows as the "Reality" and not "contradiction".
I have stated the "Human Nature" and the "oppression" of religions.
Human Nature is that they form strong family ties in times of need (i.e. if they are poor and women don't have the opportunity to liberate herself from the oppression).
There is absolutely no contradiction in this statement, but it is 100% true.
The contradiction is that the concept of so-called womens' "emancipation" from "patriarchal oppression" is a product of liberal secular modernity, and that therefore, it is entirely correct to pinpoint said form of modernity as responsible for the destruction of the family structure, and for things such as rising divorce rates.
Family and natural biological filiation are a basic anthropoligical need of humans, ie they're independent of social, economic or cultural conditions and circumstances.
And I presented the proof that women in Arab countries are rich and thus could afford themselves. Thus the divorce rate has gone up to 60%, despite being an Islamic country. While non-religious countries like China and Vietnam had lower divorce rate while family was needed in order to survive.
Even in Iran, people are getting less married and more divorces. Against 3 marriages, there is 1 divorce case in Iran today which was impossible to imagine couple of decades ago. Reason is this that Iranian women are becoming educated and they don't want to be exploited by their husbands any more.
Conclusion:
Increase in divorce rate is not related to Western System, but it is related to the Human Nature. Whenever women get educated and stronger and get equal rights as humans, the rate of divorce will increase while they no longer let husbands to exploit them.
It doesn't really matter whether or not the country is Islamic, as long as western concepts of "feminism", individualism, materialism, commodification of life and consumerism, as well as the bogus positivist ideology of uniform civilizational "progress" gain traction among citizens of those Islamic countries. The causes for increasing divorce rates remain unchanged. And education per se isn't among them.
Also, to suggest that men are predestined to "exploit" their women is simply absurd.
And you know in which case the separation rate is ZERO and woman always stays with husband if he wills?
YES ...WHEN WOMAN IS SLAVE OF THE MAN.
Divorce is rare or nonexistent when Tradition is respected, because natural law is implemented and everyone fulfills their logical role.
The quote above is akin to demeaning one's own male ancestors, implying they treated one's female ancestors not with love and recognition, but as slaves! What can I say to such an outlandish assessment.
An oppressive family is absolutely not an anthropological and psychological need of human being, but it is the cause of depression of human being.
There's nothing oppressive about a traditional family. Authority is a requirement in the organization of every society, and family is the nuclear cell of society.
And yes, there's a psychological and anthropological need for filiation and family, because these stem from human nature itself, from how humans come into being, how they are raised until they reach adulthood and so on.
A divorced family is much much better for human needs as compared to a family where oppression is taking place and there is fighting and abusing is taking place every day.
Internal conflicts which are themselves yet another direct consequence of liberal secular modernity and its materialistic, individualistic alienation of man.
__________
~
At the age of 9 ? ? ? whose need exactly ? ? ?
I'm obviously being misquoted here.
But, the need of those paedo-criminals whom the zionist occupation regime in Palestine welcomes with open arms after granting them asylum on a racialist basis, by virtue of the so-called law of return!
Are this experts enough for you ?
kindly read before replying :
This only confirms my point. I was responding to someone who claims that Islamic law does in fact allow child marriage, and I said they should leave the interpretation of Islamic law to actual Islamic scholars.
So it isn't me who needs to read before replying!
www.cbsnews.com
dailyvoice.com
kfor.com
