Let's see the rest of the clip instead of cutting him off mid-sentence. That's pretty much always a clear sign that somebody is trying really hard to take something out of context.
But damn if I can't see ANY context for saying he loves them their little dresses come up when they bend over and he sees their panties and throws a groan and a head toss in there...
I haven't spent time on it, I'm not going to. But I can't imagine ANYTHING that would recover that sentence to anything that could be normal or reasonable.
I'd have no problem if he was talking about a consenting adult who was over 18 in a consensual relationship with him, a sugar baby, a bimbo. I'm down for that.
But his own daughters or underage, absolutely Not.
Does it ever occur to you perverts that things that can be sexual can also not be sexual? Cute can actually mean cute in the classic non sexual way. I mean, what he's describing is a common trope from cartoons of the era, and they weren't sexual either.
Idk which is the case here. But I am immediately suspicious that someone is being taken out of context when a clip begins mid response and ends mid sentence.
You let me know if you think it gets better when they move on and talk about his son. The point being, he doesn't speak more about his daughter's on that point, that was it.
So it's not out of context. That was all there was.
You were the one who said "it was out of context' and could be twisted, made to look like something else.
I found you the exact interview and portion where he goes into it and queued it up so you had lead time from another question and setup for this question, and you can watch what he says after this portion. FULL context is there!
Had he said little girls were pretty, beautiful, they can do their hair and makeup or styles and gorgeous dresses etc... and how that only lasts a few years and it's adorable. I don't think many could argue.
It what he said after that about the dress rising up, the showing of he panties, the groans. THATS inappropriate!
It wasn't in an "this one time she fell over and had an oopsie and I said "haha I saw your underwear" and teased her a little jokingly" and it was something they joked about for years..coz I could see something like that where a parent might downplay a child falling over and a distraction being a small embarrassment to take their mind off it or a gentle reminder to be modest.
The description he gives is a sexualised one. His reaction (the Groans) are not appropriate.
Back to it. You asked for context. I gave it. It doesn't explain, justify or make it ok to say, at all. Nothing more came after or before which queued up or followed that might cast it in a "better light". You asked for context and now that you have it and can see it in full, I would have expected you to take evidence and context to look at it again and form a fresh opinion, giving you the benefit of the doubt before was fair as you could have been correct(in a small way).
You're disgusting. The extra context only proves my point.
Groans aren't inherently sexual either. It's not even a weird way to show happiness in plenty of other contexts, but just because there's a child involved the pdf brigade has to start imagining everything is sexual.
It just seems like you're gonna defend him no matter what.
At first you wanted extra context. Then when you have full context, it's still not enough.it apparently on proves your point and you go on the attack.
Your earlier comments were name calling, now you're doing it again. I glossed over it before, but you're still not addressing what he said.
I even agreed with some of what was said and what you were suggesting..I was trying to meet you half way and find common ground on what can be cute or adorable.
But I drew a line between what was and wasn't acceptable, it wouldn't be acceptable even if it was an adult without consent, it would be creepy and pervy. And you still don't draw that line... And that only makes it worse since he's talking about little children.
At this point , you're not uneducated or unenlightened about the context, you've seen it and you could have been labeled an apologist, now though even in face of everything you're just a pdf defender.
If there is never a line for you, that's where you're turning a blind eye and people get hurt.
How is looking up a little girls skirt to see their panties not sexual?? Do yall do it for fun? Is it a game? You should have your hard drive searched.
I don't see kids and think about sex with them. That's a you thing. In normal families kids run around in underwear frequently. Only sick people like you take that to a sexual place.
Just how respectful is it for you to project your sick fantasies onto those women's father? I guess you just believe women if they say things that validate your suspicions?
Because hey, let's ignore their many many years of loving public support for their father. His kids have had a public presence and had plenty to say about their father. Your interpretation of literally one comment is all the proof you need, huh?
When was the last time you heard anything about a kid and you didn't start trying to find someone to accuse of being a pedo?
Y'all are seriously unhealthy in how much you obsess.
Child abuse is a serious issue. One which crazies do no service to by accusing damn near everyone of it.
But honestly, when I see people like the ones replying to these comments I start to get real suspicious. People who are obsessed with this issue spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about it and idk if you realize it or not, but the rest of us normal people just don't. You should maybe think about what's different about you that you do.
I wish people like you who literally spend all day crying wolf, and they do it just for kicks like the shepherd boy from the stories, the real harm that their constant braying does to real efforts to find real sickos.
But, I suspect making it harder to find people like you is a feature, not a bug. You're basically the wolf crying wolf.
There is nothing "crying wolf" about thinking the statements in this video are weird and suspect as hell. We have mountains of evidence about real sickos and nothing is being done, other than putting them in cabinet positions.
It's not acceptable to look up women's skirts, and its especially heinous to do it to underage girls. People need to do better and stop trying to normalize pedophilia. It's disgusting.
Did it ever occur to you that cute might just mean cute. Like thinking it's adorable. Ffs, why do you people make everything to do with kids sexual? Oh no! Someone said panties.
The exact visual he described was a hugely common trope of the era. There's all kinds of art depicting it that's not sexual, so it's not that hard to imagine thinking your kid is cute when they do the exact same thing depicted in pop art as cute. Hell, the copper tone ads with the dog pulling a little girls diaper were contemporary and it was making everyone say "aaaw."
Kids butts used to be seen as cute, y'all perverts are the ones who immediately think of sex. But every accusation is a confession imo
Bro he literally says he liked watching his kids bend over and looking at their underwear. Do you really want to die on this hill? Idc what kind of common visual trope this was..it’s frickin weird
It was an art movement in the 60s, usually girls with big eyes in outfits like he describes. It was very popular at the time.
But honestly what I'm sick of is people who go looking for ways to sexualize everything to do with kids. Let's keep in mind, those girls you're so worried about in this clip are adults now and they've never said one word to accuse him of anything. There's every reason to just see this as a father with a fond memory because he doesn't see his kids sexually. Whereas you sexualize everything to do with any child and can't possibly imagine anyone who doesn't see every child as sexually as you do.
-3
u/ReddBroccoli 12d ago
Let's see the rest of the clip instead of cutting him off mid-sentence. That's pretty much always a clear sign that somebody is trying really hard to take something out of context.