sazc
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2016
- Messages
- 4,468
- Reaction score
- 3,402
what are you babbling about? I never attributed any of my words to you or inferring that you said *this*Now you're trying to put words in my mouth and I already knew your feminist response would be "rape is RAPE". No chit rape is rape.
My point is that isn't it Less bad if the girl is a slvt anyways? I never said I condoned it, but nice try. Rape is objectively wrong and immoral. But a slvt has less value in terms of a serious and meaningful relationship and her sexuality has less value because she gives it away so easily anyways. How often does she trade sex for some sort of material or even financial gain? So what's the difference? In one case she trades it for goods or services, in another case she does not get anything in return. I mean why do you think a slvt or a woman who trades sex, or the implication of possible sex, deserves to be treated with the same amount of respect as a woman who actually respects her self and seeks a meaningful whole relationship with a decent guy?
Also most likely I bet that women who are more promiscuous probably make up the majority of rape victims. I wonder why that is. They should seriously do a study on that. It would make a lot of sense.
I think it's worse crime for a non slvt to be raped than slvt. Obviously it's wrong either way.
why the fvck would RAPE be "less bad" if someone had a high partner count? Because some people are more deserving of being assaulted? That's like me saying "if yer sitting in a run down motel room, or under an overpass, smoking crack with other druggies, you deserved to be beat and robbed and anally raped. You ASKED for it by your choice in lifestyle"
Dont be ignorant boy