marthawhite2000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> For example, alimony, palimony, and child sup****t is pro****tional with
> men's wealth. Now, we get nervous attracting females under that law.
> Why not let females choose the kind of financial commitment that she
> want?
> Females will be better off having *** for $100,000 per year from a
> billionaire than having *** for $10,000 per year with a floor mopper
> right? Why not let the females choose?
> However, such mutually beneficial arrangements are prevented because
> lesser cocks dictate that all ***ual relation****p has to be based on
> love that's supposedly shouldn't be shared. Bull ****...
> The real problem is because the lesser cocks wouldn't get any. So, they
> make laws against that. And then they trick females that the laws are
> there to protect females' interest. Of course not.
> Females like any other HUMAN beings will have their interest served
> with CHOICES of what to do with their body. Prohibition of mutually
> consensual acts between males and females will always hurt females
> interest.
> Ladies, if there is enough of you that sign this petition, I can use
> this as justification to eradicate all such laws. Then rich smart males
> will be available to you.
> If women say blankly what they want loud and clear, lesser cocks will
> have harder time limiting your CHOICE under the pretext of protecting
> you.
> So please sign up. Also allow me to see your email so I can introduce
> you to rich smart males, including my self. There's an option that
> says private email.
> I love you ladies...
> Sign the petition here:
> http://petitiononline.com/***with
> Cotam
nflbutch2612@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
