/lit/ - Literature

>>19264822
>both are illegal under most bishops
not true

Just read the actual proofs you twit, Aquinas is easy to understand.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum005.htm

>>11187644
In a thread couple of days ago:
you post some research from before ww2 and spout your dogma; attributing the genius of old authors to sexual purity, you keep arguing until:
>you wank over da vinci being pure
>anon points out that he was a homo and he was fucking his teenage assistants
>another points out that goethe was a sexual maniac and he's still one of the best-known german authors and romantics
>you say that if your nipples arouse you then you are perverted
>other anons prove that it's a normal erogenous zone for men and that you don't know what you're talking about
>another ones laugh at that """research""" and points out that it's pseudo scientific
then you conveniently dissappear, and start spreading your drivel in other threads.
You are no different from a /pol/-poster with his shitty graphs, charts, and research pulled out of some dark corners of the earth, and equally fanatical about silly bullshit, just with the small difference that you are going to call people sex addicts instead of jews or cucks when they don't agree with your silly bullshit. Consider getting away from the internet, it shall greatly improve your productivity and clean your mind from all the nonsense and memes.
I know that you are going to respond with some more strawmen but you don't need to bother, I'm not going to reply