Hetero is the purest form of love.
>>121982850
If it's so pure, then why is a bit of his bottom lip missing?
Let's go by definition.
>hetero
>implying the combination of two different things
>pure
>Having a homogeneous or uniform composition; not mixed
So, from a purely linguistic point of view, your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
>>121983042
Two different things that are actually one whole, coming together to become one, and become complete.
>>121983042
Once you graduate elementary school, you'll realize there are more than one definitions for some of these complicated words. Nothing except masturbation would be pure by that one.
>>121983141
Do you think it is a coincidence that the word "homo" appears in the definition for "pure"?
>>121983176
Do you think it's a coincidence it involves parents and children and their genes?
>>121983265
That's purity of blood, not purity of love.
They are still talking about sameness when referring to the genes. So it's still homo (not sexual).
In regards of love, if you wish to apply the word purity, then the word homo (-sexual, this time) should be the first association, because that's what purity is about.
>>121982850
I dislike the monogataris
>hetero
>love
Confirmed for underage
>2015
>not separating love and sex
Asexual romantic eternal friendships are the purest love, period.
>>121982850
Literally the way the Universe intended.
Duh.
Pure?
No.
>>121983374
>d (1) : of pure blood and unmixed ancestry (2) : homozygous in and breeding true for one or more characters
>HOMOZYGOUS - having the two genes at corresponding loci on homologous chromosomes identical for one or more loci
What are you even going on about? The first is more an argument for Hitler's perfect race through ancestry (which involves breeding), nothing in there about homos. The second is a genetic condition. Be more desperate though, it's fun.
>>121983573
>H-having children is impure!
Are you a high school fatty in her lesbian rebellious stage?
>>121983609
I explicitly said "not sexual", but apparently you are too retarded to read.
>HOMO[]
Thanks for confirming what I just said.
You can't split pure and homo. Homo meaning "same".
Hetero love is extremely fickle.
>>121983509
>fucking implying Lambda and Bern's relationship is asexual
>>121982850
People IRL are capable of this pure form of love.
People in their little fap-heavy fantasy worlds; not so much.
You weakling "cry rivers;" but can never compare to other people's "oceans of tears."
>>121984291
I wouldn't consider turning each other into food and eating body parts to be specifically a sexual venture. I don't hide in their bedroom but I would think they have existed long enough to be over lesbian sex. They exist to stimulate the other's mind and physical torture.
>>121982850
But that's his sister.
>>121982850
I agree.
>>121985248
>People IRL are capable of this pure form of love
More than 18 years (hopefully) and still so naive.
>>121982850
Only when incest.
>>121985547
>I met people I didn't like
>Therefore everyone is like that
>>121985248
>>121985631
Are you retarded?
Fantasy is always more ideal than reality.
In fantasy everything can work out.
"Pure love", that's an ideal. It does unfortunatelly not exist in the real world.
>>121982850
Purest form of love is a mother's unconditional love for her child.
>>121985631
To convince yourself that an idealized thing exists in reality is just beyond stupid.
Love? There is, but no "true" or "pure", and definitely not like the fairy tales present it.
>>121985724
How do you know?
>>121985792
Because most people here don't live with their heads buried below the ground, no matter how much you wish it to be true.
>>121985776
Close, but there is nothing more pure and unyielding than God's love for the world.
>>121986195
That depends vastly on the setting, for example Ludo is an asshole in Rance series.
>>121983042
Shut the fuck up yuri/yaoi fag.
>>121984044
>homo love isn't
>>121982850
he stole his sisters first kiss.
the first person to see her vagina since hitting puberty too
she gave him everything, and still he's such a dick
>>121985404
>>121986402
What part of "purely linguistic point of view" do you not understand?
>>121986526
Ah I see, my bad.
Let me try.
>Love
>7. sexual intercourse; copulation.
Therefore, there is no love without copulation.
>>121986644
That's not how you use definitions.
If you have to go down to #7 to find a definition that excludes non-copulation, then 1-6 say you're wrong.
>>121986753
That's my point you doofus, he had to go down to a definition about genetic disroder with the word 'homo' in it to relate that to 'homosexual' as the only pure love.
Mine actually even makes sense.
>>121986890
>he had to go down to a definition about genetic disroder with the word 'homo' in it
What exactly are you talking about?
>>121986890
Wait, are you referring to "homogenous"?
That doesn't mean what you think it means.
