the weird frontier between post irony and new sincerity are these

No.
Stop posting this crap, Tao.

>>8377052
Go to bed Tao

Reply to this post if you would fuck Mira

>>8377063
http://www.strawpoll.me/10950272

>>8377063
wow i honestly wouldn't
ps go to bed mira
you can't force your shit the way tao did
he's actually good
you haven't even done anything half as good as the whale poem yet
you work 1/100 as hard as tao

>>8377052

Did Mira gain a lot of weight all of a sudden? She looks... wider

>>8377078
Is there a word for this? Taoposting?

>>8377084
yeah she's looking really bad these days

are women overwhelmingly oppresssd in western society today?

>>8377098
What does oppressed mean to you? Women in western society are certainly and characteristically subjected to scrutiny of a physical and sexual nature that, I would argue, inevitably causes some psychological scars when it comes to body image, relating to men, etc.

Men are also subject to the social pressures of masculinity, which I think can also be quite damaging. Literate feminists are quite aware of this and have given the topic due treatment, by the way.

>>8377075
>http://www.strawpoll.me/10950272
>no, she's old and busted

I don't mind that she's old, and besides, she's not THAT old—and I don't think anybody's really "busted". I wouldn't sleep with her because

1. She has a boyfriend who she is sleeping with (last time I checked; that information might no longer be current), and I would not willingly help her cheat on him
2. AFAIK she has had multiple previous sexual partners, and therefore is not fit to marry; as such, there is no lawful way for me to have sex with her if I wanted to.
3. I don't think well enough of her to want to sleep with her. She's not especially pretty, and I don't care for what little I know about her personality.
4. Even if I could get over not loving her, and it not being lawful to marry, and if her current boyfriend were not in the picture—there is the further problem that it is not lawful to use contraception; and, if we should sleep together without contraception, and she should become pregnant, I fear she might abort the baby.
5. If she did choose to keep the baby, she is one of the last women I'd choose for a mother of my child, or of anyone's. But I don't know her personally, and maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe there is a more natural woman in her than she shows in her tweets. Still, I haven't enough faith in her fitness as a mother, given what little I know.

>>8377128
>I don't think anybody's really "busted"
>she has had multiple previous sexual partners, and therefore is not fit to marry
Caught you in a contradiction m8

>>8377132
She is not fit TO MARRY. She could still go on to become a venerable and pious old woman if she repented of her sinful past and gave up on sex.

No. I am.

No, I won't link you to any of my shit. The time is not yet right.

>>8377063
she is qt

>>8377128
>>8377141

Religious neckbeards are the weirdest demographic on this website. And the most terrifying in person

>>8377141
>She is not fit TO MARRY
>not fit to marry; as such, there is no lawful way for me to have sex with her
Fitness to marry -> eligibility for sex

Previously:
Having too many sexual partners (one meaning of "busted" in this context) -> unfit for marriage

Therefore you assert that one of numerous reasons you cannot have sex with her is that she is busted (disqualified), despite having claimed not to possess any such criteria for disqualification. A contradiction.

>>8377157
you've never met me in person

these aren't opinions that I made up, they're orthodox Catholic dogma afaik. is it so odd that I think they're true?

>>8377164
>busted (disqualified)

no, these are not interchangeable

>>8377167
Not universally, but in this context that is exactly what "busted" means. What do you think it means?

>>8377063
I only reply to say I would:)

>>8377052
GO TO BED TAO
O

T
O

B
E
D

T
A
O

>>8377165

Depends what you mean by odd I guess. To me personally it is kind of odd. There is of course a huge group of people that agree with you, and I suppose I am just as likely to be wrong as you are.

Is the pull out method sinful too?

>>8377191
Spilling seed on the ground is the only method of contraception that is actually explicitly forbidden in the bible, AFAIK. Everything else is extrapolating from there.

Not sure how they work around, for example, timing sex to be noncoincident with ovulation, though.

>>8377165
Yes

>>8377171
One of two meanings, neither of which I mean.

"busted" could be a mechanical metaphor, suggesting she is no longer fit for sex physically, suggesting that sex with her would be unenjoyable because she is no longer in a pristine physical state of youth.

or it could signify a psychological bustedness, an inability to give or receive pleasure because she has either lost pleasure in it by overindulgence, or by accumulated trauma and neuroses from a psychologically chaotic lifestyle.

Neither of these are what I mean. I mean that she is ineligible for marriage according to the rules. One might say she is ruined for love; but "busted" in a general sense, "I wouldn't have sex with her, she's busted", that does not at all suggest what I mean.

Anyway, I've changed my mind about it. I went and looked it up, I was wrong. I can't find anything about prior sexual partners invalidating a marriage. However, I should point to her evident attitude towards sex and argue that it does not suggest that she could honestly make a marriage vow. It would be a barrier for me; but it is, as far as I can tell, lawful. I'm looking more into it now.

>>8377191
>Is the pull out method sinful too?
you already know it is

>>8377207

What if I spill it on her tits?

>>8377128
If you took a D&D alignment test, yours would be Lawful Retarded.

>>8377238

>>You already know it is

Actually I did not

>>8377052
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee e eeee eeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee eee e e eeeeeeee eeeeeee eeeeeeee .eeeeeeeeeeeee ee ee ee eeeee