>"yeah, that thing that you just said"
You aren't the brightest kid out there, are you?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>out here*
fixed that for you, dork
11 months ago
Anonymous
I'm leaving, this shit can be contagious.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I bet you have quite some contagious shit already
11 months ago
Anonymous
>"yeah, that thing that you just said" >"no u"
Some anons somehow manage to behave like a npc better than ChatGPT. This is a captcha, are you human? Please post a photo of your hand with a timestamp.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>No, I'm talking with a bot, I'm not the bot! >"no u"
Absolutely amazing how she is a revered figure in feminist philosophy when "The Second Sex" is 750 pages of referencing novels as evidence, psychoanalysis bs, and portraying women as entirely weak and useless
It is a good book, seriously? Considering that it is a philosophy book, it is pretty straight forward for the layperson.
11 months ago
Anonymous
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm
How is this bad? It is clear, self-contained, and simple. Introduction of philosophical works tend to be complicated, convoluted and filled with references to other works. I honestly like her style and Descartes, they are somewhat the reason why I'm still learning French.
I don't listen to Freudian groomers who advocate for pedophilia. I also didn't say the book wasn't straightforward, I just found it to be one of the worst books I've ever read. It was bleak, screamed of a weak mind devoid of virtue, and was, frankly, disgusting.
11 months ago
Anonymous
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/ch04.htm
Are you for real? >It is nonsense to assert that revelry, vice, ecstasy, passion, would become impossible if man and woman were equal in concrete matters; the contradictions that put the flesh in opposition to the spirit, the instant to time, the swoon of immanence to the challenge of transcendence, the absolute of pleasure to the nothingness of forgetting, will never be resolved; in sexuality will always be materialised the tension, the anguish, the joy, the frustration, and the triumph of existence. To emancipate woman is to refuse to confine her to the relations she bears to man, not to deny them to her; let her have her independent existence and she will continue none the less to exist for him also: mutually recognising each other as subject, each will yet remain for the other an other. The reciprocity of their relations will not do away with the miracles – desire, possession, love, dream, adventure – worked by the division of human beings into two separate categories; and the words that move us – giving, conquering, uniting – will not lose their meaning. On the contrary, when we abolish the slavery of half of humanity, together with the whole system of hypocrisy that it implies, then the ‘division’ of humanity will reveal its genuine significance and the human couple will find its true form. ‘The direct, natural, necessary relation of human creatures is the relation of man to woman,’ Marx has said. ‘The nature of this relation determines to what point man himself is to be considered as a generic being, as mankind; the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. By it is shown, therefore, to what point the natural behaviour of man has become human or to what point the human being has become his natural being, to what point his human nature has become his nature.’
>The case could not be better stated. It is for man to establish the reign of liberty in the midst of the world of the given. To gain the supreme victory, it is necessary, for one thing, that by and through their natural differentiation men and women unequivocally affirm their brotherhood.
She is a marxist, but still, I don't think she is a bad thinker or writer.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Are you for real? > To emancipate woman is to refuse to confine her to the relations she bears to man, not to deny them to her; let her have her independent existence and she will continue none the less to exist for him also
This is exactly what I mean. Beauvoir paints a very pessimistic, and frankly insulting picture of women. She has absolutely no confidence in the "woman" whatsoever. She drones on for 750 pages about the litany of ways in which society has held women down, and then stomps on the balls of any stoic by saying that a woman couldn't possibly raise herself out of her poor circumstances because the outside world has such a great effect on them. Frankly she gives zero credit to the strength of women, and furthermore the strength of the individual. There is apparently some underlying "loser complex", and then it becomes clear why she is a socialist.
The whole thing is terrible, anon. She's also a massive hypocrite. I find it funny that a woman who made a point to never marry so that she could keep multiple sexual affairs going at the same time for decades and who groomed women she had power over before it was trendy says that there is no need to panic, because in embracing her ideals, "the romantic will not die".
On another note, she uses WAY too much psychoanalysis, and references Freud far too often to be legitimately credible. She simply will not stop with "oh, every woman has penis envy and a castration complex", no Beauvoir, not every woman has this just because you have repressed shame over being a prostitute and a pedo-supporting groomer in your adult years. If I had to boil down this whole book in one sentence it would be: Simone de Beauvoir spews nonsense for 750 pages for the ultimate purpose of justifying her being a shitty person because "le society made me!". For example, at one point she demonizes the fact that there are certain virtues attributed to women, because it sets an unfair expectation and portrayal of women. "AH, I'm just considered shitty because society says that women are made of sugar, spice, and everything nice, so me being made of snakes and scorpions just looks bad because of the unfair comparison!!"
11 months ago
Anonymous
She started the whole feminist. And the point isn't even "not marry" it is to not be confined by the previous stuff. She published that book in 1949. And what she is denying it the previous concept of woman.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I mean, it doesn't even fricking matter at this point, you were raised by a society that was created and influenced by her ideas.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm
How is this bad? It is clear, self-contained, and simple. Introduction of philosophical works tend to be complicated, convoluted and filled with references to other works. I honestly like her style and Descartes, they are somewhat the reason why I'm still learning French.
This is Andrea Dworkin
Andrea Dworkin was a radical feminist and social activist who is known for her controversial views on sexuality and pornography. One of her most famous statements is the claim that "all sex is rape," which she expressed in her book "Intercourse," published in 1987.
Dworkin argued that all heterosexual intercourse is inherently coercive and violent, and that women are oppressed by men through sexual acts. According to Dworkin, the social, economic, and political power that men hold in society means that women are forced into sexual relationships with men in order to survive and function in society. She believed that even consensual sex between men and women is a form of violence, because women have been socialized to comply with men's sexual desires and are unable to freely express their own desires.
I'd have sociopolitical opinions that would, if universally implemented, lead to the the extinction of the human race, too, if I looked like that.
11 months ago
Anonymous
if you know her, watch this gem:
>the title of the talk: "Sex: what is it for?" >(a tv program by british people) >STARRING: >Julia Ronder (trainee psychiatrist = flower dressed hippie who cannot sustain eye contact) >Roz Kavenay (a fat british transexual) >Anthony Burgess (writer of the Clockwork Orange, Joyce scholar, nominated "sexist pig of the year", smoking a cigar and muttering to himself instead of speaking) >Jack Dominian ("looking at marriages and marriages problems of others") >Andrea Dworking (obese feminist, author of "Intercourse") >Jim Haynes (Social Engineer???? i.e. someone who looks like a porn movie director from the 70s and has moderate opinions)
I could not watch this without laughing out loud. Burgess faces alone as Dworkin speaks are worth the watch.
God I love teens. They’re so cute and sexy. You know how men hate how women say they don’t like toxic bad boys but they do? Well men lie too, about dicky. The same way men will lie to their wives or girlfriends: “No I swear I’m not attracted to her, just you babe. She doesn’t even arouse me sexually.” I know what I’m saying is true because there are thousands of video clips of men interviewing or chatting some hot teen and he’s clearly interested until he asks her age and when she says 15 he acts like it’s the end of the world and he runs away screaming like a homosexual.
This. I’m 38. I had an 18 year old become my best friend last year and she was utterly perfect. She was giving me girlfriend energy the entire time and even seeing me behind her boyfriend’s back. I’m literally repulsed at the thought of dating someone my own age at this point. I’m not a pedo or hebe but once you have experienced the adoring attention of a teen you can’t go back to these old hags with their old hag problems. I 100% will die alone before dating in my age range again and I don’t even care.
This terrifies me.
I’m 23 and the thought of dating someone my age is so dreadful. I thought that as I keep getting older I would outgrow my attraction to teens but it just isn’t happening. I can’t imagine being almost 40 and feeling this way.
I’m the guy he responded to and I’ve found several older girls that I like. I didn’t actually enter into a serious relationship with them so I can’t tell if I could sustain feelings for them beyond occasional sexual attraction but some of them definitely stand out more than the rest. For me it goes teens > milfs > my age. So you could just aim for a girl that will look and act nice even as she gets older
This is why pedos are so shunned, we don't care if you frick little girls in your basement (or boys, since i know most pedos are into that) just don't make us uncomfortable with your dicky posting. see, a man with beastiality fetish don't go out to type HORSEMUSSY on every thread mentioning horses, and a necrophilic man doesn't visit a funeral to scream vulgar innuendos.
>a man with beastiality fetish don't go out to type HORSEMUSSY on every thread mentioning horses
so I take it you've never been in a horse thread before?
In reality e-girlta seduced Humbert, everyone seems to forget that part for some reason. Nabokov cemented himself as a genius it really speaks for itself
I always interpreted it as she seduced him the first time, but after consummation she loses her innocence (so to speak) and doesn't want to do it anymore
this. Young teenage girls are the most seductive creatures on the planet. Everything they do is on purpose, it’s their biological programming. There’s a teen at my work and she’s always staring at me and giving double takes with big dazed eyes and wearing short shorts and sighing and moaning every time she walks past me. When I mention a single word to her she fumbles and starts making weird gestures and facial reactions and voice intonations, acting all nervous. They know what they’re doing
In reality e-girlta seduced Humbert, everyone seems to forget that part for some reason. Nabokov cemented himself as a genius it really speaks for itself
When i was a minor i liked to message adults online just to mess with them and tempt them knowing it was illegal for them to act on it. I liked the power that i had over them, i liked the feeling of being desired snd the taboo nature of it all.
Ofc i never did this in real life since that would be too dangerous and now im 18 and can't do it anymore :/
e-girlta was raped even if she started the advance herself btw
11 months ago
Anonymous
Fembrained post
11 months ago
Anonymous
>when I was young and pretty I liked attention from men but now that I’m old and wrinkly it’s wrong for men to like younger girls
11 months ago
Anonymous
Its ok for a minors to like adults but not for adults to like minors. What's so hard to understand.
11 months ago
Anonymous
not an argument
11 months ago
Anonymous
I am not making an argument, just stating a fact. That's just how it is. What is your argument for the contrary
11 months ago
Anonymous
there are no moral facts. Anyway, it’s perfectly fine for me to like a teen girl because I’m actually attractive and I wouldn’t try to impregnate her unless she were married to me and old enough to accept that responsibility and be intelligent enough to handle it. I also wouldn’t mistreat or abuse her, even verbally. I would treat her like a princess (unless she acts up of course. Spanking is not abuse). And they really like me back so I don’t see the problem.
11 months ago
Anonymous
What would you do once she grows up though? If 18 is old and wrinkly accordimg to you then your princess has an exporation date. For such a thing to happen you would have to either act in secret, get the parents approval somehow or find an orphan, in any case you are leaving her in a bad position in the relationship, making cohersion inevitable. You hurt her like this, and therefore it is wrong for you to do it, even if she wants to.
11 months ago
Anonymous
pair bonding. And I don’t believe in pump and dump so I wouldn’t go after the ones I don’t actually like. But I’m not really sure how she would be scarred if we broke up or whatever. And she would always have a choice to leave. If anything I would only help her by showing what type of man she is capable of getting.
11 months ago
Anonymous
>What would you do once she grows up though?
She's still the girl you like, isn't she? And if she isn't, whose fault is it?
I wouldn't pay full price for a half-empty carton of eggs, but if I bought it when it was full and half-emptied it through my own power, why would I throw it away?
11 months ago
Anonymous
I laugh everytime you pedos post that pic as if that was something normal even back in the day in a hick state. The girls father was about to kill the nonce and the priest that married them and the governor immediately moved to pass a law to prevent that dumbshit ever happening again when it became an embarrasment and a national scandal when life or newsweek I forgot which ran an article about their marriage.
Why participate in a thread that's started in bad faith? I'm assuming most of
you are 18 or younger, edgelords, and that this book went way over your dopamine-addled brains.
I once checked out a copy of king queen knave. The first sentence has the phrase 'the big black clock' and some edgy anon defaced it so it read you know what. What the frick is wrong with israelites.
Maybe once or twice it wasn't.
of course, the whole second half where HH is constantly threatening her, preventing her from making contact with others in case she runs away, and moving around constantly so no one gets wise, yeah doesn't take a genius to know that's mostly rape.
You can'y probably consent sex, all sex is rape. Consent is a social construct.
get over here and ill social construct you
Here is a social construct, I'm right there and here, what is this supposed to mean? You are imposing your geographical egocentric views into me.
I want to impose something into you, indeed
>"yeah, that thing that you just said"
You aren't the brightest kid out there, are you?
>out here*
fixed that for you, dork
I'm leaving, this shit can be contagious.
I bet you have quite some contagious shit already
>"yeah, that thing that you just said"
>"no u"
Some anons somehow manage to behave like a npc better than ChatGPT. This is a captcha, are you human? Please post a photo of your hand with a timestamp.
>No, I'm talking with a bot, I'm not the bot!
>"no u"
Words don't exist, they're social construct. Your post is social construct
i didn't know Madame de Beauvoir browsed IQfy
Absolutely amazing how she is a revered figure in feminist philosophy when "The Second Sex" is 750 pages of referencing novels as evidence, psychoanalysis bs, and portraying women as entirely weak and useless
It is a good book, seriously? Considering that it is a philosophy book, it is pretty straight forward for the layperson.
I don't listen to Freudian groomers who advocate for pedophilia. I also didn't say the book wasn't straightforward, I just found it to be one of the worst books I've ever read. It was bleak, screamed of a weak mind devoid of virtue, and was, frankly, disgusting.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/ch04.htm
Are you for real?
>It is nonsense to assert that revelry, vice, ecstasy, passion, would become impossible if man and woman were equal in concrete matters; the contradictions that put the flesh in opposition to the spirit, the instant to time, the swoon of immanence to the challenge of transcendence, the absolute of pleasure to the nothingness of forgetting, will never be resolved; in sexuality will always be materialised the tension, the anguish, the joy, the frustration, and the triumph of existence. To emancipate woman is to refuse to confine her to the relations she bears to man, not to deny them to her; let her have her independent existence and she will continue none the less to exist for him also: mutually recognising each other as subject, each will yet remain for the other an other. The reciprocity of their relations will not do away with the miracles – desire, possession, love, dream, adventure – worked by the division of human beings into two separate categories; and the words that move us – giving, conquering, uniting – will not lose their meaning. On the contrary, when we abolish the slavery of half of humanity, together with the whole system of hypocrisy that it implies, then the ‘division’ of humanity will reveal its genuine significance and the human couple will find its true form. ‘The direct, natural, necessary relation of human creatures is the relation of man to woman,’ Marx has said. ‘The nature of this relation determines to what point man himself is to be considered as a generic being, as mankind; the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being. By it is shown, therefore, to what point the natural behaviour of man has become human or to what point the human being has become his natural being, to what point his human nature has become his nature.’
>The case could not be better stated. It is for man to establish the reign of liberty in the midst of the world of the given. To gain the supreme victory, it is necessary, for one thing, that by and through their natural differentiation men and women unequivocally affirm their brotherhood.
She is a marxist, but still, I don't think she is a bad thinker or writer.
>Are you for real?
> To emancipate woman is to refuse to confine her to the relations she bears to man, not to deny them to her; let her have her independent existence and she will continue none the less to exist for him also
This is exactly what I mean. Beauvoir paints a very pessimistic, and frankly insulting picture of women. She has absolutely no confidence in the "woman" whatsoever. She drones on for 750 pages about the litany of ways in which society has held women down, and then stomps on the balls of any stoic by saying that a woman couldn't possibly raise herself out of her poor circumstances because the outside world has such a great effect on them. Frankly she gives zero credit to the strength of women, and furthermore the strength of the individual. There is apparently some underlying "loser complex", and then it becomes clear why she is a socialist.
The whole thing is terrible, anon. She's also a massive hypocrite. I find it funny that a woman who made a point to never marry so that she could keep multiple sexual affairs going at the same time for decades and who groomed women she had power over before it was trendy says that there is no need to panic, because in embracing her ideals, "the romantic will not die".
On another note, she uses WAY too much psychoanalysis, and references Freud far too often to be legitimately credible. She simply will not stop with "oh, every woman has penis envy and a castration complex", no Beauvoir, not every woman has this just because you have repressed shame over being a prostitute and a pedo-supporting groomer in your adult years. If I had to boil down this whole book in one sentence it would be: Simone de Beauvoir spews nonsense for 750 pages for the ultimate purpose of justifying her being a shitty person because "le society made me!". For example, at one point she demonizes the fact that there are certain virtues attributed to women, because it sets an unfair expectation and portrayal of women. "AH, I'm just considered shitty because society says that women are made of sugar, spice, and everything nice, so me being made of snakes and scorpions just looks bad because of the unfair comparison!!"
She started the whole feminist. And the point isn't even "not marry" it is to not be confined by the previous stuff. She published that book in 1949. And what she is denying it the previous concept of woman.
I mean, it doesn't even fricking matter at this point, you were raised by a society that was created and influenced by her ideas.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm
How is this bad? It is clear, self-contained, and simple. Introduction of philosophical works tend to be complicated, convoluted and filled with references to other works. I honestly like her style and Descartes, they are somewhat the reason why I'm still learning French.
This is Andrea Dworkin
Andrea Dworkin was a radical feminist and social activist who is known for her controversial views on sexuality and pornography. One of her most famous statements is the claim that "all sex is rape," which she expressed in her book "Intercourse," published in 1987.
Dworkin argued that all heterosexual intercourse is inherently coercive and violent, and that women are oppressed by men through sexual acts. According to Dworkin, the social, economic, and political power that men hold in society means that women are forced into sexual relationships with men in order to survive and function in society. She believed that even consensual sex between men and women is a form of violence, because women have been socialized to comply with men's sexual desires and are unable to freely express their own desires.
We need to bring back Auto-da-fe
I'd have sociopolitical opinions that would, if universally implemented, lead to the the extinction of the human race, too, if I looked like that.
if you know her, watch this gem:
>the title of the talk: "Sex: what is it for?"
>(a tv program by british people)
>STARRING:
>Julia Ronder (trainee psychiatrist = flower dressed hippie who cannot sustain eye contact)
>Roz Kavenay (a fat british transexual)
>Anthony Burgess (writer of the Clockwork Orange, Joyce scholar, nominated "sexist pig of the year", smoking a cigar and muttering to himself instead of speaking)
>Jack Dominian ("looking at marriages and marriages problems of others")
>Andrea Dworking (obese feminist, author of "Intercourse")
>Jim Haynes (Social Engineer???? i.e. someone who looks like a porn movie director from the 70s and has moderate opinions)
I could not watch this without laughing out loud. Burgess faces alone as Dworkin speaks are worth the watch.
She is very freudian.
>consent
more like godsent
Yes
God I love teens. They’re so cute and sexy. You know how men hate how women say they don’t like toxic bad boys but they do? Well men lie too, about dicky. The same way men will lie to their wives or girlfriends: “No I swear I’m not attracted to her, just you babe. She doesn’t even arouse me sexually.” I know what I’m saying is true because there are thousands of video clips of men interviewing or chatting some hot teen and he’s clearly interested until he asks her age and when she says 15 he acts like it’s the end of the world and he runs away screaming like a homosexual.
This. I’m 38. I had an 18 year old become my best friend last year and she was utterly perfect. She was giving me girlfriend energy the entire time and even seeing me behind her boyfriend’s back. I’m literally repulsed at the thought of dating someone my own age at this point. I’m not a pedo or hebe but once you have experienced the adoring attention of a teen you can’t go back to these old hags with their old hag problems. I 100% will die alone before dating in my age range again and I don’t even care.
nice
This terrifies me.
I’m 23 and the thought of dating someone my age is so dreadful. I thought that as I keep getting older I would outgrow my attraction to teens but it just isn’t happening. I can’t imagine being almost 40 and feeling this way.
I’m the guy he responded to and I’ve found several older girls that I like. I didn’t actually enter into a serious relationship with them so I can’t tell if I could sustain feelings for them beyond occasional sexual attraction but some of them definitely stand out more than the rest. For me it goes teens > milfs > my age. So you could just aim for a girl that will look and act nice even as she gets older
C U N N Y
U
N
N
Y
This is why pedos are so shunned, we don't care if you frick little girls in your basement (or boys, since i know most pedos are into that) just don't make us uncomfortable with your dicky posting. see, a man with beastiality fetish don't go out to type HORSEMUSSY on every thread mentioning horses, and a necrophilic man doesn't visit a funeral to scream vulgar innuendos.
> we don't care if you frick little girls in your basement
you know that's a shitposting and not some pedophile, for pedos you have to visit IQfy and check for south american flags
>a man with beastiality fetish don't go out to type HORSEMUSSY on every thread mentioning horses
so I take it you've never been in a horse thread before?
Denounce the Talmud and post Black person or out yourself as a fricking israeli troony.
Yes, Humbert was raped.
In reality e-girlta seduced Humbert, everyone seems to forget that part for some reason. Nabokov cemented himself as a genius it really speaks for itself
I always interpreted it as she seduced him the first time, but after consummation she loses her innocence (so to speak) and doesn't want to do it anymore
this. Young teenage girls are the most seductive creatures on the planet. Everything they do is on purpose, it’s their biological programming. There’s a teen at my work and she’s always staring at me and giving double takes with big dazed eyes and wearing short shorts and sighing and moaning every time she walks past me. When I mention a single word to her she fumbles and starts making weird gestures and facial reactions and voice intonations, acting all nervous. They know what they’re doing
Yes, the pedophile recounting the story assures us that the child seduced him. Righto
based child playing the pedophile like a fiddle, how did she do it, bros? Why are women so naturally cunningly manipulative?
When i was a minor i liked to message adults online just to mess with them and tempt them knowing it was illegal for them to act on it. I liked the power that i had over them, i liked the feeling of being desired snd the taboo nature of it all.
Ofc i never did this in real life since that would be too dangerous and now im 18 and can't do it anymore :/
e-girlta was raped even if she started the advance herself btw
Fembrained post
>when I was young and pretty I liked attention from men but now that I’m old and wrinkly it’s wrong for men to like younger girls
Its ok for a minors to like adults but not for adults to like minors. What's so hard to understand.
not an argument
I am not making an argument, just stating a fact. That's just how it is. What is your argument for the contrary
there are no moral facts. Anyway, it’s perfectly fine for me to like a teen girl because I’m actually attractive and I wouldn’t try to impregnate her unless she were married to me and old enough to accept that responsibility and be intelligent enough to handle it. I also wouldn’t mistreat or abuse her, even verbally. I would treat her like a princess (unless she acts up of course. Spanking is not abuse). And they really like me back so I don’t see the problem.
What would you do once she grows up though? If 18 is old and wrinkly accordimg to you then your princess has an exporation date. For such a thing to happen you would have to either act in secret, get the parents approval somehow or find an orphan, in any case you are leaving her in a bad position in the relationship, making cohersion inevitable. You hurt her like this, and therefore it is wrong for you to do it, even if she wants to.
pair bonding. And I don’t believe in pump and dump so I wouldn’t go after the ones I don’t actually like. But I’m not really sure how she would be scarred if we broke up or whatever. And she would always have a choice to leave. If anything I would only help her by showing what type of man she is capable of getting.
>What would you do once she grows up though?
She's still the girl you like, isn't she? And if she isn't, whose fault is it?
I wouldn't pay full price for a half-empty carton of eggs, but if I bought it when it was full and half-emptied it through my own power, why would I throw it away?
I laugh everytime you pedos post that pic as if that was something normal even back in the day in a hick state. The girls father was about to kill the nonce and the priest that married them and the governor immediately moved to pass a law to prevent that dumbshit ever happening again when it became an embarrasment and a national scandal when life or newsweek I forgot which ran an article about their marriage.
cope and seethe
>sneedville
Movie name? 😀
Exactly he’s an unreliable narrator.
Why participate in a thread that's started in bad faith? I'm assuming most of
you are 18 or younger, edgelords, and that this book went way over your dopamine-addled brains.
have a nice day moron
>proves his point
>got cum on the library copy pf this book one time
I once checked out a copy of king queen knave. The first sentence has the phrase 'the big black clock' and some edgy anon defaced it so it read you know what. What the frick is wrong with israelites.
Yes, they say it in the book.
w..why did they have to make it so hot
Nabokov famous said that the cover must have a real photo of a seductive preteen.
Noncy author writes noncy book and insists that cover must be noncy. Shocking.
nonce website
He insisted on the opposite, but publishers didn't give a frick.
e-girlta manipulated a vulnerable mentally unwell man into having sex with her. She raped him.
based KEKita chad
I'm particularly interested in BURita interpretations of it.
Maybe once or twice it wasn't.
of course,
the whole second half where HH is constantly threatening her, preventing her from making contact with others in case she runs away, and moving around constantly so no one gets wise, yeah doesn't take a genius to know that's mostly rape.
if she wasn't a virgin anymore it couldn't be rape
She raped Humbert and didn't take responsibility.
That question aside, did sicilian men really screw their daughters as Humbert says?