"Femanons," try and convince me that there's a single girl who isn't a massive whore. I'll wait.
>>27002234
Wimin crave cock, it's in the bible.
>trump posting, cuck posting, and fembot baiting all in one post
I want /pol/ to leave
"they either have been, they are, or they will be"
it's never false.
>it's easier to get sex as a women
>sex is fun
>it feels good
I don't blame them, I mean if sex without paying for it was easy for guys too everyone would be a whore regardless of gender
>>27002234
>femanons do x
saged and reported
Get rid of these shit threads
>>27002234
I've been down this road before, OP. Everything I say will be completely ignored, because it doesn't fit your worldview. No evidence is good enough to disprove your belief, no evidence is flimsy enough to not support your belief. Robots are incapable of arguing in good faith.
>>27002234
Asexuals or women who have good relationships with their parents/ are dependent on their parents, since a lot of harlots do what they do probably as some sort of late edgy-teenage rebellion-phase.
Maybe some who were risen traditionalist and still hold on to that.
>>27002431
I'm capable of reporting your shitposts
>>27002234
Well, I'm not a girl but I've been married to one for 7 years. She's only had sex with two other guys while we have been together.
Inb4 trolling: not trolling, they were both in threesomes.
>>27002522
She's a whore then
your confirmation bias is so strong it doesn't even matter
>>27002579
>there'd be no point in arguing with OP
>BUT I CAN STILL LET EVERYONE KNOW I'M A WOMAN
>>27002412
>getting this mad
originalerino pizzaria
>>27002530
how? seriously, on what possible account is she a whore?
>>27002579
how can you claim confirmation bias without giving any argument for me to respond to?
the only person to offer any evidence was a dude who said his wife had slept with two people other than him during their relationship.
>but muh threesome
unless youre into dudes, that threesome was entirely so she could get more dick.
>>27002644
>had a threesome
>not a whore
You're both cunts who should be gassed
>muh consent
Don't care
>>27002234
>who isn't a massive whore
What's the definition of a massive whore?
inb4 you
inb4 all women
inb4 more than one partner
inb4 not a virgin
inb4 I hate tripfags and women
>>27002388
False.
I had girls throwing themselves at me before and I turned them down, because I don't see the point in being with someone I don't really feel connected to.
>>27002706
what? that was my first post in this thread
and because this same exact argument has been done in so many threads that end the exact same way of robots putting their fingers in their ears and ignoring anything that contradicts their world view, you can't have rational arguments with people like that
not to mention the term "whore" is so subjective that this whole thread has no significant meaning beyond OP is a fag
>>27002769
whats the point of this attempted stall? pretty sure everyone here knows what a whore is. every woman i have ever met cares about one thing above all others, and its dick.
>>27002769
This. Also, please let us know what evidence you'd consider probative. Nothing more annoying than arguing with some shithead who starts moving the goalposts as soon as you put up.
>>27003164
get the FUCK out of my thread chad
>>27003210
are you seriously asking me to tell you what answer to give? how about this: if your argument isnt retarded, ill listen to it
>>27003199
in the time it took you to write that post you could of answered my question
which is a legitimate question since there are many interpretations of op's statement
>>27003199
We want a clear definition because what you consider a whore might not be what I consider a whore. If you're saying "a woman who cares about nothing but dick is a whore," then that's different than saying "any woman who has had sex with more than one person is a whore," or "any woman who has had premarital sex is a whore." Fuck, for all I know your definition of whore is "has a vagina," in which case yes, you win by tautology.
>>27003280
No, I asked what you'll actually consider probative. E.g., do you completely disregard anecdotal evidence? How about firsthand versus secondhand? Do you consider surveys valid? Do you want a photograph of someone's hymen with a timestamp?
>>27003485
Why are you bothering? You won because OP said "all". There's always at least one outlier
>>27003601
if only, anon.
