I got an awkward question:
Do you all want romantic partners in life or are you waiting for the pleasure bots and forsaking real vagina?
i honestly believe that i have divine essence as a man, think that we all have it and we just to find a way to it, when we have problems. But i might be covert narcissist or just psyched up after lsd. But i still try to approach conversations from that angle, do it intuitevly and everytime look for that lively plesaurous vibe, everytime i can, when speak with women. I guess it is easier to do, when you know them for sometime and look decent. Don't know, but i won't forsake a vagina, it is pretty good
[automerge]1778788055[/automerge]
What do you all think about sucking to your femboy? How do you see it symbolically or just feel about it?
[automerge]1778788139[/automerge]
Depends who it is. 99% no. But someone I'm madly in love with... yeah, why not?
I was a trad wife type that wanted to get married in my 20s. Never happened. Now I'm holding out for a David8!
what made you, as a woman so crazt about porn? Have you been rape and is it there connections between trad mindset and history of abuse, what do you think?
[automerge]1778788250[/automerge]
Well this brings up the question of should we separate the art from the artist? I'd argue yes, the art itself can stand alone. However, that doesn't mean financially supporting the artist, not socially ostracizing them, etc. I'm speaking purely on a moral judgement stance. Shunning certain behavior/ideas is kinda necessary for a functional society, should we ever decide to create one.
i guess you can make it a special experience, by percieving a history of an artist through his art. That's the way to never be afraid of art and maybe get just a lil more
[automerge]1778788827[/automerge]
You ever think about the amount of tidbits of knowledge/interests that simply never get shared because the person knows that it surrrounds a topic people are too quick to judge on?
[automerge]1777839774[/automerge]
It led me to thinking about all the types of authors, you know, those ones who make 'deep and unique' stories, or famous art and stuff, and they always turn out to be dickheads, criminals, etc.
It made me wonder if there is a level of, not like a control on speech, but closer to groupthink, where the message is refused not because it sucks, but because the person who made it sucks. I started thinking about this again after that one ridiculous interview from Fujimoto after he ended Chainsawman. Am I crazy or is this actually showing up more often than people are willing to admit?
Edit: Does this count as politics? I am not sure how broad that rule is and I don't want to get a warning/banned
i guess because of internet and automatic forming of moral picture of a man, in the world intertwined socially you can be anxious anyway because you will 100 percent be torn appart immediately and the purpose and the form of the message eather must be adapted and made bland, either you grow out balls and be public enemy or a visionary. Being a normie is still the safest option. I make art, i approach it in a way that won't be understood by someone, who never lived like me, i think and i won't share it because i use it to just speak to people. I think that art is like rings on the tree and most of it isn't for anyones consumption ever. A lot of beaty is forever private, because we will never agree