Can a mod either change /bant/ rules to 'no porn whatsoever',

>making a thread of that quality
you deserved more than an IP ban

>>1562421
It's /bant/, they shouldn't give a shit about quality.

>>1562422
would you get away with a thread like that anywhere else? I think it's pretty clear that you wouldn't, why should bant be any different?
I find it hilarious that you think you have any right to complain about getting banned for something like that

>>1562424
>would you get away with a thread like that anywhere else?
Of course not, but they're not random. /bant/ is similar to /b/ in every way. Why do I have no right to complain?

Gonna speak my mind.

All posts relating to sex in any way (outside of legitimate scientific research followed by intelligent and mature discussion) are the worst posts on 4chan, and they attract horrible people the website would be better off without.

>>1562422
>It's /bant/, they shouldn't give a shit about quality
fuck off to reddit since you obviously need mods to wipe you ass for you

https://archived.moe/bant/thread/2093820/
>>>/bant/2093820

I agree, however aren't nsfw selfies not allowed outside /soc/ anyway

>>1562428
I can smell your grease through the screen.

>>1562433
What's funny is that the greasy people are the ones most likely to be begging for a chance to talk about sex at the drop of a hat.

>>1562428
Fair enough.
>>1562429
Good job addressing my point.
>>1562430
No where does it say that in /soc/'s, global, or /bant/'s rules.

>>1562437
Not the guy you replied to
>go to rurus page
>ctrl+f soc
>No hookup or camwhore threads! Take that to /soc/.

>>1562425
when you make an absolutely abhorrent thread and get banned for it I feel like you shouldn't need it explaining for you. I think you should take a look at the rules, specifically >>>global/rules/6

>>1562440
...Which is under /adv/.

>>1562441
It's /bant/. It's made for abhorrent posts. If every single anon that made an abhorrent post got banned, that entire board would be empty.

>>1562445
holy shit kill yourself

>>1562428
Literal sex is disgusting imo, but you realize sexuality is most literally what defines purpose for humans? Without sexuality we wouldn't have a foundation to return to intellectually, if you know what I mean.

For example, video games might make someone happy. But playing video games doesn't necessarily ensure you perceive the physical extent of your person, or of whom you feel you should protect. Someone could theoretically be left in a certain philosophical oblivion without sexuality, for as soon as they have to employ logic to keep themselves or another safe, they will fail if they can't refer to a person sexuality dictates they should regard as good to save.

It's just basically, kids put their hands in sink garbage disposals because their curiosity makes it seem pleasurable. An adult might see their wife wander somewhere unknown and tell them to stay back where it's safe, and will test the waters cautiously for their sake. Without sexuality what one regards as worthy of protecting is sheer coincidence and shares no inherent common denominators with what anyone else considers good and worthy of protecting. This is without addressing that sexuality is literally from what humans are conceived, so anything you propose to explain why it's wrong is null, for human morality is inherently a consequence of sexuality, even if formally removed from it later. But doing so is inherently less literal of a representation of human morality and is thus inherently false. But be sure to fail to respond with a "intelligent and mature" rebuttal to disappoint yourself.

>>1562449
Have you ever wondered why there are so many unhappy people in the world?

>>1562445
are you retarded

>>1562447
>>1562474
Two hot arguments, thanks guys.

>>1562463
I would have to think it's because where lust is the literal representation of human purpose and pleasure, people falsely attribute the pleasure of indulging in porn to the literal porn in front of them. I think if we focused on being able to mentally recall the feeling of lust without any external stimuli, we would always be as happy as we can, intellectually, which is to say without considering variables as hunger.

Considering one can't necessarily walk around with an erection all the time, I think the best way to always be happy is to render lust of a logical progression from something you always remember. Whatever. I dunno if you're the original guy but I'm just surprised you never responded with cookie cutter anger. Whatever though.

>>1562478
>where lust is the literal representation of human purpose and pleasure
Congratulations on misunderstanding life.