Okay. Wow. Now go back and read what I actually said without that chip on your shoulder. The whole comment.

Ossiana’s wording in that one sentence was a poor choice. By saying that the little girls are signing away their virginity to their fathers gives them agency where they have none.

I would not claim that Ossiana was rationalizing this practice by saying that because I know that’s not what she intended. The main body of her article is clear that she’s against this practice. So am I. Obviously. She just didn’t think through how that statement might land.

Since you’re confused, I’ll say it again. Those little girls do not have agency to sign away anything. They’re too young to comprehend what’s being asked of them. It’s a scam. I will not let anything stand that comes across as victim blaming of little girls. Even from someone whom I admire and support.

Fuck that shit. It’s not happening on my watch. I’ll say again for clarity. I DO NOT BELIEVE OSSIANA WAS INTENTIONALLY VICTIM BLAMING.

It’s the Dads and the religion that both promote and do this. They’re doing it for themselves, not the daughters, otherwise they wouldn’t be lying about it, would they? They wouldn’t be doing it at an age before their daughters are sexually aware, would they? I was clear in my previous comment exactly what they get out of it and yes, it’s fucking sick and depraved.

In what universe was either of my comments any kind of justification? What’s going on in that head of yours that you think being precise about language, how things play out, and rejecting the false assignment of agency where there clearly is none equates to promoting, advocating for, or justifying such a sick sick practice?

Maybe, next time, before you start making false statements of your own, you’re gonna want to actually read something through and make sure you understand what is being said.