/lit/ - Literature

What is the most lewd statue in existence?

I have to go to bed, but I expect this thread to be up in 8 hours. Counting on you guys. Don't fail me.

>>6989407
I'd have to go Pygmalion on dat ass GOT DAM

>>6989414
even if no one posted from here on out the thread would still be up in 8 hours

and OP the answer is you can't gain purity. You either are faithful or you are not. There is no middle ground. If you have to ask "should I be doing this?" then the answer is no, you should not

>>6989407
>the greeks chose to fuck little boys instead of dat booty

Shit culture

>>6989407

I love the fact that the ancients actually had a Goddess devoted to Dat Ass.

"Start with the Greeks" indeed.

>>6989407
/lit/ - literature

>>6989429
ew nigga wtf that look like some bodybuilder manass

>>6989407
Who is this marble sparble?

>>6989421
>highbrow potty humor
i like it

>>6989407
who is this sculpture vulture?

>>6989407
lel but greeks where buttfucking faggets

>>6989437

Uh, are you sure you like women?

>>6989498
yes, which would explain why I don't like that disgusting manass. Are you irish?

'purity' is a load of bullshit tbh

>>6989407
Do you reckon young lads in ancient Greece and Rome jerked off to these kinds of sculptures?

>>6989503
Your sexuality renders you unable to appreciate male aesthetics ?

>>6989407
>This is what "patricians" believe

>>6989519
what?

>>6989511
You give me the reason.
You give me control.
I gave you my Purity.
My Purity you stole.
Did you think I wouldn't recognize this compromise.
Am I just too stupid to realize.
Stale incense old sweat and lies lies lies

[Chorus:]
It comes down to this.
Your kiss.
Your fist.
And your strain.
It get's under my skin.
Within.
Take in the extent of my sin

You give me the anger.
You give me the nerve.
Carry out my sentence.
While I get what I deserve.
I'm just an effigy to be disgraced.
To be defaced.
Your need for me has been replaced.
And if I can't have everything well then just give me a taste.

>>6989407
Who is this stone joan?

>>6989525
People and their divisions need rationalizations. "purity" is bunk. You mean innocence, as in innocence of a child? Ah, no. It's about sexual divisions and the supremacy of men again.

>>6989571
Even a well structured sentence with good prose can be badly written if it doesn't take into account its context and audience. I suggest you take this to heart in future posts.

>>6989571
filtered. again.

>>6989591
It just sort of blurts out.
Stop at "bunk."

>>6989414
Exhibit A

>>6989414
Exhibit B

>>6989571
it's funny this board of all places could somehow, in any of its members, prize ignorance

>>6989414
Exhibit C

>>6989653
And yet it do

>>6989646
I...I don't understand.

>>6989414
Pi-Chacán

>A girl that's been used before is like buying a used toothbrush. Experience is actually a negative. We want fresh, tight, inexperienced and pure.

>>fresh, tight, inexperienced and pure.
>having sex doesn't make vaginas loose virgin

>>having sex doesn't make vaginas loose virgin
>actually it does, stretching the pussy makes it looser you can condition them to take larger and larger dicks/dildos this way.
>the vagina is an adapting organ, over time stretching it makes it looser

>you can condition them to taking in larger objects but that doesn't mean that it's going to be looser around smaller objects as well afterwards.
>if you think that, you have no idea how female arousal works re: the vagina.

>>6989797
Perceived tightness result of clenched muscles IE nerves. More sex = less nervousness. A woman with more experience is less nervous and less likely to subconsciously clench her vaginal muscles resulting in the perception that a woman with more partners is 'looser.'

Proof: A baby goes through there, does the vagina stay baby sized forever? Don't be a fuckwit.

>>6989797

These kind of rationalizations are pointless. Wanting virginity is just an extension of wanting monogamy, only to a greater degree. Just like your girl not fucking other guys while you are with her makes you feel good because you have exclusive access to her, knowing that no one else has at all makes you feel even better because the access to sex with her is completely unique to you. Any argument against wanting a virgin can be extended to not wanting a girl who has sex with other men while you are together.

> It does'nt matter that she had sex with other guys in her past, she loves you and is with you now.

> It does'nt matter that she had sex with other guys last night, she loves you and is with you now.

> Don't you want someone who is good at sex?, experience is a bonus. You are lucky that your girlfriend had sex with other dudes because she is more experienced.

> Dude, what is wrong with you?, by fucking all those guys on her holiday she got way better at sex, now you get a more experienced partner.

It's all just a matter of scope. Sure, there is the "betrayal" factor. But why is you exclusively getting sex from her a factor in the first place such that her not abiding by it hurts you? Some people are ok once there is a certain amount of distance from her being with other men, others are bothered by it regardless of if time has passed since. Its not as if there are perfectly determinate lines of when exactly a relationship starts- unless people take the mere formal utterance of " we're going steady now" as some mythic-symbolic act that changes everything.

wait are there actual cucks in here that are okay with their women taking a plethora of dicks?

top kek, you guys are desperate for some tang you'll take anything you can get huh

>tfw virgin qt gf
>tfw broke that pussy in
>tfw nobody else will ever get to tame that sweet poon like I did
>tfw I own an entire vertical smile all to myself
feels GOOD not being a literal cuckold

>>6989883

>>6989944
someone needs to put them all in one big box with the caption "Betacucksupreme"

>>6989961
you see that little box that says Cheating? that's the only box by definition that's Cuck.

>>6989966
>Is my girlfriend/boyfriend being fucked by another person?
>yes/no
>if no, you are not a cuckold
>if yes, you are a cuckold

>>6989975
that implies monogamy. some people have more than one person they consider romantic/sexual partners, y'know: that's the whole point of the chart.

>>6989407

I posted this image of Venus Kallipygos on /fit/ months ago and anon made this meme. It's almost as I am a special snowflake just like mommy told me.

>>6989981
yeah and they're cucks

>>6989571
feminist

>>6990904
So, if I have sex with someone (C) who is having sex with someone (B) I (A) am having sex with, would all three of us be stuck in a cuckloop?

>>6990930
see, the thing with 'cuck' is that it implies a certain level of inferiority, and being in a cuckloop such as puts each person at an equal level of sexual importance. it cancels out.

>>6990930
Some say that if you make a cuckloop big enough you get transported to the interracial breeding grounds where the cucksheds have free internet

What do you mean by purity? How would one gain purity?

>>6990950
>the concept of cuckoldry having anything to do with interracial relations
>>>/pol/

>>6990947
If someone in the cuckloop branches out, by having sex with someone outside it, would that person turn everyone else in the loop a cuckholder?

>>6989407
Who is this cock rock?

>>6989571
Butterfly, please just go to Reddit. Everyone will be happier.

>>6989883

I want to be in your position, but at 24 I fear it is too late for me. I mean sure, where I come from age of consent is 16, but I don't think I could stand a highschool girl.

>>6990987

topkek. best iteration of that meme I've ever seen.

>>6992022
have you been here long? it's p good but i've seen way better

>>6990987
Who is this cock-vulture rock-sculpture?

"Purity" in the context of anything but physical composition of a substance, is an actual nonsense word.

Outside that very narrow scientific context, whenever I hear a person use the word, It immediately flags them as a potential idiot.

>>6992000
The virgins I've been with were 18-20

>>6992118
>Abstract subjective concepts don't exist

I guess "bravery", "honor", "respect", all don't exist too.

Scientism is brain cancer.

>>6992065

pretty long. Albeit, wasn't the best by itself but in conjunction with the picture I just personally found it very funny.

>>6992152
You can define bravery, honour and respect.

Purity on the other hand?

Pure from what?

Spoopy metaphysical corruption?

Get outta town.

>>6989414
Barberini Faun ofc

>>6992192
Bravery honour and respect are spooks just as much as purity is. It's an abstract concept, obviously you can claim that the lines aren't clear but to deny it entirely is retarded.

A girl who never had sex, values monogamy and wants a loyal lifepartner is more pure than a girl who eats 10 dicks per month. If you disagree with this assertion you're being purposefully dishonest and/or ideologically driven.

>>6989414
The one I'm casting in the likeness of your mother from my near-lifelong collection of semen (my own and my dog's).

>>6992220
Spooks or not, they're at least verifiable phenomena.

Bravery is a description for the act of standing against something you fear.

Honour is an abstract social currency.

Respect is the value you attatch to another person.

Purity is. . . . some gribbly religious notion, based in nonsensical ideas about metaphysical "corruption" brought on by physical acts - which is essentially magical thinking, and as such, rather stupid.

You wanna call a ho a ho, do it.

No need to invent some mystical state of ritual uncleanliness to try and justify your fear of sexual promiscuity.

You big dork.

>>6992271
You're just pointlessly playing with semantics like an idiot. You understand completely what it means but you don't like that notion because you have brain cancer.

>>6989797
I've fucked a lot of women, all sorts of women at that, and as far as I can tell there is no correlation between how tight or lose their vagina is, or how protrudent their labia are, and how many sex partners they'd had. If that's something you care about then you're going to have to determine it some other way.

>>6992319
sure you have

>>6989665
Virgin detected

I read this thread on mobile and thought of pic related when the cuckloop was mentioned.

Pic related. 573 people involved in total. 52% (288 people) are in the cuckloop.

145 people in the cuckloop are male, 143 are female.

18 Women were involved with 4 or more people in the cuckloop. However, only 10 males were involved with 4 or more people.

However, a male also scores the highest amount of links. The Chad on the right truly lives up to his surname of Thundercock as he is involved with 9 women. The next highest male is on Chad's left having 5 (I assume this is Chad's best friend, Kevin Lightningdick). All other males had 4 or less not only in the cuckloop but in the entire study.

No female broke the 5 barrier. There are however two female 5's on the cuckloop (Stacy Thundertits and Lucy Lightningsnatch).

It is worth noting that there are only two homosexual relationships, one MM one FF. The MM is in the bottom leftish. The left homosexual male is involved with 3 women (one of which branches 3 times and continues the loop) in addition to his partner while the right homosexual male is involved with 3 women (two of which branch in a straight line, one of which continues the loop) in addition to his partner. The FF is not on the cuckloop at all and is in fact on the chain to the right of the loop. It involves a triangle with two women sharing the same man (Although neither woman is exclusive to the man they share).

>>6992355
63 masterrace

>>6992303
Clearly my mastery of semantics is greater than yours, otherwise you would have responded with some semantics of your own.

Purity is a nothing, and you are powerless to effectively argue otherwise.

Go back to your waifu, imaginary women are perfect for men who value imaginary traits.

>>6989525
>what?
butterfly is a shitposter who pretends to be a tumblr feminist

>>6992368
Nice ad hominem, anyone who believes in purity is clearly a virgin. Also, it's so hard to understand what purity means from the hypothetical example I gave, right? Right, because your brain is full of cancer and you are HIV+.

>>6992369
At least they're entertaining and informative.

The only true crime is being unfunny.

>>6992383
Whatever you say, butterfly.

>>6992378
Still not a cogent response to my assertion that Purity is a magical notion.

But you can abase yourself by insisting otherwise as much as you please.

>>6992390
HIV+ idiots aren't convincible because they have convinced themselves of certain notions fueled by their HIV+ ideology and worldviews. You're in a self contained bubble of idiocy.

Everything I said so far would have made it clear for you what the concept of purity implies, even if it's not a concretely objective concept (the other ones I mentioned aren't either), you're the only one imposing this retardation on yourself.

>>6992271
>Honour is an abstract social currency.
And purity isn't?

>>6992412
He's terminally ill in the brain. To understand the notion that a person is a desired partner for not having bonded with others before, together with valuing lifelong partnership and loyalty, but then to deny the concept of purity because it's not a tangible scientific idea, reeks of scientismic AIDS.

>>6989407
nah

>>6992401

In the interest of decency, I must tell you that your Madonna/Whore complex is showing.

Zip it up boy.

>>6992412

Honour is less abstract than purity: it carries with it the notions of fair dealing, honesty, solidarity with one's community, and principal, which are valuable things to any community.

Purity on the other hand, is derived only from ritual taboos regarding food, sex or violence, - particularly in the area of sexual taboo, the notion exists solely as a woefully ineffective security blanket against cuckoldry.

Taboos are a result of magical thinking.

Being a reliable and upstanding member of a community on the other hand, is a social currency based on far more logical grounds than ritual uncleanliness.

>>6992423
>muh pure incorruptible virgin waifu

Sorry, I didn't realise I was dealing with a /jp/ immigrant.

I should have been more gentle with your laughable values, considering you probably have a social disease.

>>6992192
>spoopy
A spook is giving a value judgement to something based on it's own merit, rather than judging it based on it's relation to you.

Love is a spook when expressed in the abstract (love for your fellow man) it is a spook. However, an immediate relation between persons is not a spook. Stirner's main points were about one's relation to conceptual thought and how we are either servile to it or use it for our own benefit.

This is what happens, people always take the path of least resistance.

What you end up with is entire schools of thought and concepts compressed into an easily digestible meme - 'mah spooks', 'imma ubemensch', 'I'm having an existential crisis'...

>>6992468
See, this is actual constructive discourse.

If only some people in this thread were capable of the same.

>>6992468
>Love is a spook when expressed in the abstract (love for your fellow man) it is a spook. However, an immediate relation between persons is not a spook.
Just because someone can't experience a higher affection doesn't mean it is more spooky than other forms.

>>6992458
Your HIV+ is leaking. Calling something a complex doesn't invalidate it.

>>6992465
Another pointless ad hominem. I neither visit /jp/ nor view anime, but your idiocy convinces you that anyone who opposes your views, and values loyalty and no prior bonding is some crazy loser virgin strawman.

You can't possibly more counter productive in proving your point.

>>6992498
I don't need to invalidate you.

You got no counter-argument.

That's like turning up to a street fight without a brick.

I'm still waiting on your grand refutation, you lame duck, you.

>>6992501
An ad-hominem is only a logical fallacy when it's used in place of an argument.

My argument is still standing.

I'm just shitting on a rube for funsies.

>>6992458
This post basically invalidates your retardation
>>6989859


It's completely obvious what purity entails even if it's not concrete. Purity can entail, like it was said countless times, lack of prior bonding combined with values in loyalty and prolonged partnership.

>>6992504
Your HIV+ brain can't see what's plainly in front of you, you slither around things like a slimy worm just to validate your pre-existing dogma.

Hint: you can replace "purity" with any word you like, it's obviously clear what it refers to and what things are preferable in a partner to someone who values "purity".

You are a corrupted brain, you are hopeless, you are the ideological cancer of humanity. Not because of your views on purity in particular, but your general line of cancerous dishonest thinking.

>>6992511
It's only proving my asserion that the notion of Purity is a cuckold's security blanket.

Paralyzing fear of betrayal must be an awful curse.

But I have no sympathy for men who curse themselves.

It seems to me that if everyone worked on themselves and career until 30 instead of investing themselves in unmaterialized relationships society would be a lot more productive, people in relationships would be a lot more mature and everyone would be a lot more independent. Obviously it wouldn't be easy and there would be failures but I don't see why that is an unworthy goal. Bertrand Russel argued for less shame towards sexually active people in their twenties because modernity made marriage at 16 unfeasible and it couldn't be expected of people to abstain until 30. But since when is setting the bar low a good thing?

>>6992531
So because you value loyalty and purity, it means that you want your partner to engage in sex with others?

Great point AIDSmaster.

Honor is just a paralyzing fear of dishonor.
Bravery is just a paralyzing fear of cowardice.

>What I disagree with is a paralyzing fear of what I am like, because religious people are dumb lol

>>6992537
20-25 is the prime age for a woman to give birth in terms of child's health.

>>6992524
At risk of being cliché

U mad bro?

Your every sentence only reveals more of your inner self.

You're driven by fear of cuckoldry, to take comfort in pseudo-religious notions of ritual uncleanliness.

You are tragicomedy.

>>6992544
You deconstruct any notion of value in loyalty and monogamous partnership because you ideologically despise it, you hate anything that is not HIV+.

You come from a dogmatic assertion and then change anything according to that.
Someone values loyalty? He's just "afraid" of cuckoldry.

You're not a comedy, you're cancer and AIDS incarnate.

>>6992539
You are afraid of being cucked.

This colours your worldview.

You bought the memes man.

>>6992458
>social currency based on far more logical grounds
No, it's also based on spooks. It's just that those are spooks you have a positive relationship so you don't think they're spooks.

You are an ideology-ridden, spook enabling, idol worshipping cheeky bastard.

>>6992557
It means absolutely nothing to say that.
One may not want to be cucked, what of it? Is anything you don't want "fear"? Are you supposed to be okay with it?

You're not being clever, you're fighting a meaningless battle of words that reaches nothing but HIV positivity.

>>6992543
Today most educated people don't have children that early. If women spent those 25 years becoming a better potential wife, mother or worker I don't understand why that wouldn't be ideal, too often bad relationships can socially stunt people, create hang-ups and insecurities and delay children.

purity is an essence

>>6992553
But loyalty and purity are not the same thing.

The idea that you might say, expect a woman to be "loyal" to you before she even meets you, by forgoing romantic contact with other men, is as absurd as a woman expecting that from you.

Also, the dead giveaway is that from the start you focused on purity in the sexual sense, as opposed to in any of the other myriad senses that it's used in.

You Are A Cuckold.

I can see it in everything you write.

You naively put your trust in some hobag, it bit you in the ass, and now you've got a chip on your shoulder.

You sad, comical creature.

>>6992565
Because feminism combined with capitalism are the sterilization of intelligent women.

>>6992570
If you value pair bonding and loyalty, there is inherent value in not having previous experiences, not for you and not for your partner.

You're fighting a losing battle, your entire worldview is based on AIDS. Although, you are so far gone that anything bad that happens will just cement your worldview by doubling down and slithering around.

>>6992570
>It doesn't matter if a girl had 200 partners before me or 0, what matters is the present alone

I'm sorry, but lol. How can someone take this seriously without being blinded by ideological idiocy?

Do you want some analogies? Nah, you're just gonna say that analogies aren't a proper argument.

>>6992582
I would like you to step back a moment a think about how many people's first relationships were also their last.

If you start to feel foolish, you can let me know by continuing to rabidly funpost.

>>6992594
You got the same disease as this other Bozo.

Neither of you will ever find happiness, because your worldviews are nonsensical.

"She must be loyal to me before she even knows who I am!"

Are you worth that kind of loyalty?

Are men not also creatures of deception, who can appear to be one thing, until you live with them, and find that they are another?

You two lack empathy for women.

But also for other men, because relationships are complex, and both sides can be at fault.

You two seek to reduce them to a matter of "purity and loyalty", which is a hallmark of naivetie, and foolishness of the most banal sort.

Aye, I've had relationships fall apart, I suspect most of us who aren't Robots have.

if you lack the emotional maturity to chalk it up to basic incompatability, as opposed to blaming the woman for "being an impure whore", then you are, both of you, destined for nothing but well deserved misery.

Piteously and ignorantly self-inflicted misery.

You cuck yourselves in the end chaps.

>>6992631
>I would like you to step back a moment a think about how many people's first relationships were also their last.

Means absolutely nothing to say this. Absolutely HIV+ ridden logic. These values aren't values that people hold universally, and the notion that people who have multiple relationships (who clearly don't value these things) have "better" relationships later on doesn't disprove anything.
They're valuable to me, and to my partner. This isn't advocating that it's objectively valuable to everyone. The same applies to honor, bravery, etc.

>>6992631
>"She must be loyal to me before she even knows who I am!"
What the fuck is wrong with your brain to come to this assertion? Valuing loyalty and lack of previous pair bonding has nothing to do with wanting the person to be aware of your existence before you meet, it's just a factor that makes them a valid partner to you if you also find them appealing in other things.

>Are you worth that kind of loyalty?
For her to decide, with her value systems.

>Are men not also creatures of deception, who can appear to be one thing, until you live with them, and find that they are another?

Trust can be broken, betrayal can happen. So can death, this doesn't invalidate the belief and continuation of life.

>You two lack empathy for women.
I love one more than you can comprehend is possible with your ideologically poisoned brain.

>You two seek to reduce them to a matter of "purity and loyalty", which is a hallmark of naivetie, and foolishness of the most banal sort.

Just because these aspects are valuable doesn't mean they're the only aspects worthy of noting, you're an idiot and you don't even understand what you're arguing against.

>if you lack the emotional maturity to chalk it up to basic incompatability, as opposed to blaming the woman for "being an impure whore", then you are, both of you, destined for nothing but well deserved misery.
It being at fault in other things doesn't discredit the value of purity and loyalty.

>>6992649
You have a child or a simpleton's worldview.

If you want to break down the relationship between two human beings to a set of statistics you miss the entire point.

Relationships don't have to last forever to be valuable, because nothing lasts forever, they're still a source of strength and goodness in a person's life while they last.

Dumbshit.

Get over your crippling fear of betrayal and accept that sometimes you don't get it right first time.

You feeble /r9k/ wasetoid.

>>6992631
>if you lack the emotional maturity to chalk it up to basic incompatability
Is viewing people as puzzle pieces more mature than viewing them as laundry?

>>6992674
The validity of these statistics doesn't imply they're the only thing that matters.

What if I value a relationship that lasts for life? Are you trying to convince me to stop valuing that? Why? Are you afraid that someone might be having a more fulfilled relationship than you?

You're arguing a strawman, HIV+ patient. I don't visit /r9k/ neither am I a virgin.

You are the epitome of HIV+ mentality.

>>6992674
babby is getting mad

babby put big space between setences

babby makes curse with period

Idiot. -_-

>>6992674
You have no concept of morality or love whatsoever

Your entire view of the world is completely self-centered, which is ironic because you have no real self-identity whatsoever

You have no respect for your body

Sorry, go back to sucking that niggerdick

>>6992672
1. It's not my assertion friendo.
It's the implicit result of all this conflation of loyalty and Purity you and this other clown have been doing.

2. Damn straight it is, and let me tell you, your worldview isn't going to win you ANY points.

3. How nice of you to agknowledge this.

4. And what ideology am I poisoned by?
Come on, call me a Social Justice Warrior, or some equally vacuous dog-speak slur.

5.We've already established that "Purity" is a non-property.

Nonsense, bunk, the tattered remnants of ritual taboo, draped over a sobbing manchild's shoulders.

6. There you go conflating them again like they're A. related criteria, and B. the former isn't imaginary.

>>6992719
Thanks for tripping so I can filter your inconsequential babble.

There is insufficient Goddess of Arse in this thread. Bow down and worship, slaves.

>>6992720
>1. It's not my assertion friendo.
It's the implicit result of all this conflation of loyalty and Purity you and this other clown have been doing.

No, it's not, and I have said why it's not in the previous post. You're just countering points because you are obligated to counter my points, even if your argument doesn't say anything, because you're not here to be convinced of anything.

>2. Damn straight it is, and let me tell you, your worldview isn't going to win you ANY points.
It already has, are you gonna keep using starwman arguing? It's getting laughable.


>4. And what ideology am I poisoned by?
Come on, call me a Social Justice Warrior, or some equally vacuous dog-speak slur.
I don't need to create a strawman to see you're poisoned by mental AIDS. Your way of thinking is inherently HIV positive, you slither around concepts to prove your initial dogma right, you are the new age equivalent of the christian fundamentalists you despise so much.

>5.We've already established that "Purity" is a non-property.
No, you established this in your own poisoned brain. And even if it's not physical concrete property, the implications are obvious, and the physical properties it implies are obvious.

>Nonsense, bunk, the tattered remnants of ritual taboo, draped over a sobbing manchild's shoulders.
More strawmanning, my argument doesn't count because I am the r9k boogyman you despise.

>6. There you go conflating them again like they're A. related criteria, and B. the former isn't imaginary.


I like how you conveniently skipped these two posts >>6992561
>>6992562

More HIV+ rational. It's clear what it implies.

>>6992727
That's not even a tripcode you fucking idiot

>>6992720
Why are you here and not on tumblr/reddit? Honestly

>>6992738
Oooph

>>6992720
>Keeps calling people virgin loser r9k cucks
>"Come on, call me a social justice warrior, I dare you!"

>>6992761
You are correct, looks like I'll just have to hide his posts manually.

How tedious.

Right, i think we've got about as much as we're going to out of this thread.

So in summary:

None of you can effectively argue that "Purity" is a non-magical criteria, and as such, a complete nonsense concept in the first place.

Yall conflate Loyalty with "sexual purity", implicitly demanding that your sexual partners be "loyal" to you before they even enter into a relationship with you, which is patently absurd, and laughably some of you don't even appear to understand that this is implicit in your arguments.

And you all have the naivety of prancing fawns when it comes to the realities of accepting the mistakes of people you love.

You are imperfect, women are also imperfect.
This does not mean you are going to be betrayed by any woman who's so much as seen another man's penis.

Shit, I'm surprised nobody cried;
"GET OUT ROASTIEEEEEEES!"
"REEEEEEEEEEE CHAAAAAAAAADS!"

Because the base assumptions of this thread, and you, it's apologists, are pure fare /r9k/ dressed in mock garb of intellectual discourse.

In conclusion, fuck you all, I'm going to eat my dinner, goodnight.

>>6992800
You don't have to go to /r9k/ to view love in its traditional sense.

Also, why would we listen to a whore/gay guy about her MTV perspective of justifying being a straight up sloot?

>>6992800
>HIV+ patients in charge of being capable of not censoring disagreeable thought

You're so fucking mentally weak, you're a carpet to walk on.

>None of you can effectively argue that "Purity" is a non-magical criteria, and as such, a complete nonsense concept in the first place.

Ignoring any explanation given or physical implications of the concept of purity, yep, if you ignore any explanation then actually you're proven right. Who coulda thought? Btw honor exists because I said so.

>Yall conflate Loyalty with "sexual purity", implicitly demanding that your sexual partners be "loyal" to you before they even enter into a relationship with you, which is patently absurd, and laughably some of you don't even appear to understand that this is implicit in your arguments.
Loyalty isn't equal to purity, but purity is the notion that someone who values loyalty combined with no previous partner bonding is a desirable relationship partner (if they meet various other criteria to make them appealing to you)

>You are imperfect, women are also imperfect.
Sure
>This does not mean you are going to be betrayed by any woman who's so much as seen another man's penis.
Sure, but it also doesn't mean that it's verbotten to put value in lack of previous emotional and sexual bonding.

**This is where your ideological dogmatic AIDS is apparent.**

>Because the base assumptions of this thread, and you, it's apologists, are pure fare /r9k/ dressed in mock garb of intellectual discourse.

Still arguing this strawman goes to show how deep you are in your own pool of faeces and HIV+ fluids.

Enjoy your AIDS.

>>6992800

>Shit, I'm surprised nobody cried;
>"GET OUT ROASTIEEEEEEES!"
>"REEEEEEEEEEE CHAAAAAAAAADS!"

funny because what you're doing is the literal equivalent of that, lol

you've done nothing but convince me that your view of sexuality and relationships is inferior

>>6992800
>You are correct, looks like I'll just have to hide his posts manually.
>How tedious.
>Shit, I'm surprised nobody cried;
>"GET OUT ROASTIEEEEEEES!"
>"REEEEEEEEEEE CHAAAAAAAAADS!"
>Because the base assumptions of this thread, and you, it's apologists, are pure fare /r9k/ dressed in mock garb of intellectual discourse.

cool person, would hang out and agree with

thread over?

>>6989407
>that buttocks

Why are threads like this allowed to exist when politics is not?

Why are the mods such cunts?

>>6993010
Surprised they didn't delete it, with their views

>>6992468
Finally, somebody who understands Stirner.

>>6989981
You don't seem to know what cuckold means

>>6989981
I think the chart is satricial and it's trying to say "love isn't real anymore, girls just want as many dicks as possible"

I'm not pure anymore; I've sucked my dick too many times.

>>6989944

worlds most confusing Venn diagram

>>6993092
It's pretty well-done anyway. I'd save it if I wasn't trying to limit the quantity of things I save from 4chan.

>>6992832
>>6992800
>>6992755
rekt so hard

A woman's purity is her hymen.
A man's purity is his honor.

>>6995459
get ready for the replies from sjw cucks.