Genitalia is only meant for procreation, you fucking degenerate.
Of course it's gay. Anonfilly is always gay.
you have to put your pp in a breedable hole
Anonfilly is built to be bred.
You tuck your peen back mister
Imagine doing nothing but thinking about sex all day long.
Is that a picture of u
Your linked in profile and drivers license I bet
Correct, she looks like a cocksleeve.
why would I try to breed with myself
No horny and no horno
Anons are entirely for platonic love and appreciation >>315851
I appreciate your bum
Wow. LOOKS like OP is a smug fagoy that can't understand why interspecies mixing is better than being a dipshit goyim. Knowing how this trash goes down though, OP is either:
#1: an insufferably cucked inbred muttoid that posted pro-((IDF))) shit for the purpose of self-validation after infiltrating (((durr wurst heretics EBER))))
#2: a tryhard zoomer-wannabe-boomer making trashbog LULposts to get internet points that they could exchange for $0.25 once a day.
Don't misplace the (((principles))) of either since they are inherently degenerate traitors. However, both of them get the rope, or the """gas chamber""" soon.>>315819
Anonfilly was never about male human Anons becoming previously-sex-addicted-forever-incel-fillies. It was about (You) done fucked up and now ponies get to punish you for being a degenerate at least, in their eyes.
Which is hilarious. Let it snow, anon, let it snow.
thats gay, unless youre married to a woman>ponyfucking incel
No one said the Original Anon that turns into filly could not be a femanon. Actually can't Anonfilly have multiple origines?
not having sex is exactly what (((they))) want you to do though
look, would someone please explain to me how exactly the virgins intend to achieve positive birthrates without having sex? DNA pods perhaps? artificial wombs? hopefully one day, but this is HERE, and NOW. do SOMETHING.
Having sex in modern feminist jewed society means giving a woman absolute power over you. She can legally cry rape at any time to ruin your life.
Having a child in that society means giving a woman further power over you. She can initiate a divorce without your consent at any point to steal your child and turn it into a meal ticket for her. A divorced woman is guaranteed alimony, one with children is guaranteed even more money.
There are women who dream of baby-trapping and divorce-trapping and financially enslaving men, keeping them pussy-whipped not with withheld sex but the threat of divorce and further legal and financial exploitation.
Women are like goblins. Greedy and selfish and childish and creepy and untrustworthy. Only an evil ruler would give them more power than they deserve. The only good goblin is a dead goblin and the only good woman is a bred woman with no power over the child or man artificially granted to her by the State.
White society prospered when women were property of their fathers/husbands and when marriage was more than a formality that makes divorce possible.
sex is degenerate, retard. having it is a betrayal of the principles set forth by Saint Peter, and any depraved sex-haver is damned for all eternity to the lake of ice and fire.
but they're interrelated. if might does indeed make right, and ignorance of this natural law is what is degrading society, then what exactly are we to conclude from a monogamous ideal of marriage (which is what the person you were replying to was referring to, before you point out the existence of polygamous marriage)? well, either that all men are equally entitled to a wife, or that there are simply two tiers of men, those who deserve a wife and those who do not. or we could go further and divide wives on whatever standard one would wish to judge them, beauty, skills, whatever. but all of these interpretations limit and cage natural might - whereby a truly mighty man could acquire as many wives as he desired. so the implication is clear - that if a man must have one wife, and a woman one husband, then the sexes are equal. even if they each had one additional, these two would each be loyal only to one of them - that is, the two halves in a marriage are SO equal that they are implied to share all things. so you see, monogamous marriage contains within it the seed for the ideas of economic, social and sexual equality.
>>321412>so the implication is clear - that if a man must have one wife, and a woman one husband, then the sexes are equal.>monogamous marriage contains within it the seed for the ideas of economic, social and sexual equality.>the implication is clear
Or it sure isn't. Just because woman are spilt up equally among men does not imply that men and woman are equal to each other.
Cuz THIS thread sure deserved a necro-bump
>>321412>men turn down women to look at unrealistic anime tits
This is the logic of a roastie whore actually turned down by an anime-loving man.
I know smart white men betrayed by their school systems and barely able to get dogshit jobs, anime is their coping mechanism, not the root cause of their problems. That would be divershitty, jews, leftist jewed schools and colleges, and so on. Arguing online over anime is their social interaction. Circlejerking over trash shows is their community.
Jews made movies to brainwash women into monkey-branching whores with unrealistic standards for men long before they started turning up the propaganda about what kind of woman a man should fight for and kill for and fight "revolutions" for.
Go and watch Devon Stack's bitchute video about that old jewish film where a jew teaches a white woman how to wokeify her commumity before moving on to the next.
That being said and while I still don't like promiciousness; I do ponder if polygamy might be sorta good during these troubling times but I'm not certain.
The reasons being that: Being promicious just means hooking up with a woman but does not mean you impregnate her and it also doesn't mean she will never be with some disgusting non-white. And I do wonder if occypying more than one woman couldn't be good sumply because then there are more woman giving birth for team white but perhaps this is a too mechanical view on the situation and it wouldn't flow socially in some manner.
Ehh, what I'm I doing? I don't need to sage something that's already bumped back up to the first page. This thread will probably be a slider thread and if it isn't it stays for the unrelated discussion taking place that has nothing to do with OP.
>>321415>Or it sure isn't. Just because woman are spilt up equally among men does not imply that men and woman are equal to each other.
right, but if all the MEN aren't equal, that is, some are unmarried, then, given enough unworthies, you might end up with being able to split women up equally among men with two to a man. >And I do wonder if occypying more than one woman couldn't be good sumply because then there are more woman giving birth for team white but perhaps this is a too mechanical view on the situation and it wouldn't flow socially in some manner.
genocide isn't just an attack via or on social fabric - we can hem or haw about whatever social fabric existed in some bygone age, but survival isn't interested in such things. in the case of pure, evolutionary natural selection, whatever social fabric allows you to survive is the one that works, that's the only reason social fabric was ever preserved in the first place - out of assumption that your sons would face the same problems as you. but we do not face the same problems as our forefathers.
pretty though and all, but it'd be more practical if the physical concept of marriage was divorced from the ills of society, which it currently is not.