Gay/whore kids are the female version of funko pops
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (75)
sorted by:
More like abused son and fatherless daughter.
Why is every liberal “victory pose” just a glorification of their failures?
It's either the best photoshop I've seen yet because the words conform to the wrinkles and whatnot on the shirts.
Or it's really fucking sad they don't realize how used and abused they're being.
look at their faces...I suspect they have an inkling...
I feel like half of these things are done with a certain amount of irony that then gets lost on the people who just got it from FWD: FWD: FWD
It's like you can see the dead inside from both of their eyes..
Chick has horrible fake tan, gobs of makeup, and is wearing the feminist baggy T-shirt burka. I don't need to see her squinty eyes to know the cold, glassy lack of expression they hold.
trust me...there's an expression. one that says, "somebody please kill me so this incredibly humiliating moment can be over..."
When did thot become something to aspire to?
When people started rewarding them for being whores.
Thanks
When did other people become something to aspire to at all?
When did other people's alleged innate characteristics become something to aspire to?
There's something wildly braid dead about saying "My son is gay.... I DID IT!"
"My son is gay.... I DID IT!"...
At this point we probably all know what that means.
The 19th was easily the biggest blunder in the last 100 years.
Yes, even worse than the Civil Rights Act.
The former caused the latter
No dad
Your mom looks like a tranny
Imagine not only celebrating the end of your own genetic line in your own fucking lifetime, but while your children are still alive!
Your title is a joke but something tells me they are actually very related. Physical social proof? A modern way to "show wealth" by actively and wholeheartedly spending resources on useless frivolities? Being so dedicated to the narrative that you excitedly support antinatalist practices? This is the shit that actually is able to blackpill me.
"I really hate visiting mom for the holidays."
"Shhh, just take the photo and we can go."
"You going to burn yours too?"
"I thought I'd donate mine to the homeless."
"lol, based."
At least they kids aren't half nig.
Wait aren't funko pops already a female thing? Useless plastic trash used as a substitute for actual personality is like egirl catnip.
They're also shitty figures.
People make real figures that actually don't look bad if you want one. Get a figurine that doesn't suck if that's your hobby.
It's like getting into aquariums and only buying gold fish.
liberal women.. most dangerous thing to ever happen to civilized society and a hinder to the advancement of humankind.
while I maintain homosexuality in and of itself is not harmful (even if there's a lot of harm within the community and harm itself is often would drive someone to it), there's nothing good about being a whore. You destroy your body, and destroy your social credibility, and think a lack of self-control is empowering.
Not to get too far down this particular rabbit hole, but everything you said about being a whore is just as, if not moreso, applicable to male homosexuals. Female homosexuals seem to be outwardly slightly less degenerate, but they have higher domestic abuse rates and worse mental illness rates (iirc) than both gay males and heteros.
Not to mention the frankly incredible rates of disease.
Every time this is mentioned I wonder if it's actual abuse rate or just report rates. If women are the more likely partner vs men to report domestic abuse, real or made up, then a pairing of two women are unsurprisingly going to result in lot more reports because modern society has not only moulded them to wield these accusations as weapons but also provided the very weapons and infrastructure through kangaroo courts to do so with little to no cost even when making shit up.
It may still be a true statement, in part because men are likely also under-reporting abuse for a whole list of reasons, so women having a higher threshold to both report on actual events as well as making shit up means lesbians are always going to be top of the pile when it comes to this.
tl;dr I think the actual numbers are far, far murkier than any initial glance offers. Men probably under-report, women probably over-report, and women also probably flat out make up reports. All of which means lesbian numbers score highest.
The weird thing is that lesbians aren't actually the top of the pile. Bi women are. You'll notice though that these stats are never presented in a per-partner fashion and are always something like: "experiencing intimate partner violence in their lifetime." So if one group has more partners, they'd have the higher lifetime DV stat all else being equal.
Then the obvious question is "why aren't gay men #1?" Probably a mix of DV not being likely in casual encounters, men reporting far far less, and men knowing that they'll get hit back if they start shit.
I actually agree with all of this, even if it dulls the edge of a talking point I love to bring up. At the very least though, even with all this considered, I think it is easily justifiable to say that the level of dysfunction in lesbian relationships is greater than any other style of pairing, since even if they're just bullshit reports, the level of bullshit reports is higher than others.
I disagree. there is certainly heavily overlap between being a whore and being a homosexual, but one does not automatically indicate the other.
Things like sexual promiscuity, disease, and genital/rectal injury are all direct consequences of being a whore. Becoming homosexual is also a possible consequence of being a whore, but homosexuality in and of itself does not indicate whoredom.
homosexuality, in the most literal terms, brings about sexual arousal from the same sex. The word has nothing to do with sexual promiscuity. While homosexuals are statistically more likely to be whores, a truly monogamous homosexual is in fact not a whore and does not suffer the consequences of being a whore.
"promiscuity, disease, rectal injury"
You just described gay men.
There is no such thing as a monogamous homosexual, furthermore. Just at least one liar.
I described gay whores, a subset of gay men, not the entirety.
A general rule does not preclude against the existence of an outlier, and vice versa.
The vast majority of them are "whores" as you would put it. And that is the case because one depravity inevitably leads to more. Hence why pedophilia is so prevalent there as well.
And thus the inherent harm.
right, and a definition does not describe a general rule. It is correct to say that most gay men are whores because that describes an observation made about gay men. However there is still the distinction between "gay man" and "whore", because one describes sexual attraction andthe other describes sexual promiscuity. Lumping them together dilutes the definition.
You're applying too narrow of a definition. The term describes more than just one simple thing, and can very easily be ascribed to behavior. Either as well, or entirely. Arguably the latter is more honest.
If one thinks about killing another, does that make them a murderer?
Particularly since I do not ascribe to the idea that homosexuality is an inherent trait.
Male homosexuality by definition requires a large amount of anal sex, which in all forms is destructive to both your body and health, and both those destructions happen to be everyone's problem because you live in society where we have to deal with your broken, disease riddled ass (just the same as with a whore). Heteros might have anal sex, but its far less frequent because its not the only option.
So by its very existence, its harmful. Unless they just don't have primary forms of sex at all, which also applies to whores too!
And male heterosexuality, by definition, requires a large amount of vaginal sex. That's why being straight and being an incel are mutually exclusive /s
The "in" part of incel stands for involuntary, as in they'd absolutely be having it if they could. Probably in weird and gross ways, but still all up in that gash.
That's the point I was making. Whatever-sexuality is the desire/arousal aspect.
Actually having the sex isn't a prerequisite. Unless you want to go for some weird semantic argument where all virgins are "asexual."
Anal sex is of course, extremely common among homosexual men. But "by definition," is just plain wrong because that's not part of the definition.
You are right, it was a poor way of phrasing it because there is the possibility of being a homo and not having sex.
But the vast majority will be, just like the vast majority of heteros will as well, so the point remains either way regardless of that semantical failing of my currently ill mind.
Not by definition. Homosexuality involves sex with the same sex, be it the singular act with a single person OR the promiscuous act with many. The word does not care how specifically this act is carried out.
Words mean things. Conflating words deludes our ability to define the world.
Except they are going to do it, enough so that we can generalize without much room for error. We all know it, and trying to enforce a strictly pedantic definition to win your argument (that I admitted in the other comment was poorly phrased on my end) is the same Leftist tactic of "I know a black guy with a PhD so their average IQ stat is wrong."
Do you also think pedophiles are not necessarily harmful because you can be attracted to children without ever acting upon it? That MAPs should be protected and welcomed because they haven't committed any crimes until they do? Because that's the same line of reasoning you are now reaching for.
fucking or wanting to fuck single child is always bad and begets the woodchipper.
comparing pedophilia to homosexuality is not a good comparison though, because pedophilia is inherently evil but homosexuality isn't. One can be a homosexual with a consenting party and the only possible harm they bring is to themselves and said consensing party. A pedophile will never have a consenting party.
Except in this case it is. Either we go with the strictest definitions and neither of them are "inherently evil" because they are simple thought crimes with no victim besides yourself, or we accept the obvious conclusions to these labels as inevitable to happen and thereby part of that definition.
You can't strip the homo down to its barest, strictest and most pedantic definition to say "its not evil then!" and then turn around and treat pedos with all their baggage to use your woodchipper meme. That is literal Leftist argumentation for why they pretend that MAPs are a distinct thing from pedos in the first place.
Its a failed argument, and its not even getting into the huge overlap of pedophiles and homosexual men to begin with.
Wanting to fuck children is evil. just like wanting to murder someone is evil. therefore pedophilia is evil.
And yet I'd wager you have probably thought about killing someone before in a rage. Does that make you evil because you desired murder? Should all people with OCD (aka, sufferers of unwanted intrusive thoughts) be woodchippered as well for their evil thinking?
Or do we make judgements based on generalized expectations of the behavior and actions someone will take based on their label?
Isn't this strict, pedantic definition game fun? It always works out so well!
Wanting to fuck a dude in the ass is also evil.
I mean, at this point we should all understand what evil is, and why faggotry is evil.
It does not. You can do only oral
And teens can just practice abstinence.
Except we both know that isn't going to happen in either case.
As long as we are clear it's still gay. lol
Just as well that that guy is gay anyway. He looks like he's 140lbs soaking wet. No woman is going to be interested in him.
He looks like he had weird hormone exposure in the womb.
This is new, I've never seen a female soyjack before.
I always thought their kind reproduced by mitosis.
I'll give you a two for the price of one.. has to be the same logo though.. "My Mom drank when she was pregnant."
Literally the own nothing and be happy smile
their eyes are below the eyeline...
...am I the only one who thinks neither of her kids wanted to be in that photo?
they look like they want to crawl under the floorboards and die of embarrassment in peace...