If you touch a child inappropriately at all, it's abuse by its very nature. You don't have to beat that child, or lock it in a room as a sex slave or take photos for it to be abuse. They're trying to normalize the act through an elastic definition of terms, like Clinton did with his "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".

If you touch a child inappropriately at all, it's abuse by its very nature. You don't have to beat that child, or lock it in a room as a sex slave or take photos for it to be abuse. They're trying to normalize the act through an elastic definition of terms, like Clinton did with his "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".

If you touch a child inappropriately at all, it's abuse by its very nature. You don't have to beat that child, or lock it in a room as a sex slave or take photos for it to be abuse. They're trying to normalize the act through an elastic definition of terms, like Clinton did with his "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".

If you touch a child inappropriately at all, it's abuse by its very nature. You don't have to beat that child, or lock it in a room as a sex slave or take photos for it to be abuse. They're trying to normalize the act through a n elastic definition of terms, like Clinton did with his "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".

If you touch a child inappropriately at all, it's abuse by its very nature. You don't have to beat that child, or lock it in a room as a sex slave or take photos for it ti be abuse. They're trying to normalize the act through a n elastic definition of terms, like Clinton did with his "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is".