Cac shyt
Lol exactly. Only a gay dude would even come up with the scenario he just did.Ur definitely gay if you think sex is only for making children
Talk about projecting/deflecting
We all want to nut in the women, we just don't want the repercussions. But the desire to have sex is based upon attraction. If you are only doing for kids, and not attraction...then that by definition means you aren't attracted to women like that.It sounds like he's saying men want to have sex to nut in a woman to reproduce. So if you're having sex just to enjoy and not nutting in a woman you're gay as you don't want to reproduce.
We all want to nut in the women, we just don't want the repercussions. But the desire to have sex is based upon attraction. If you are only doing for kids, and not attraction...then that by definition means you aren't attracted to women like that.
Time to dive back into those old Tate threads to see who was co-signing this stupid fukk
We do nut in the woman though lol even a condom allows us to nut in the woman.He's going by animal kingdom logic.
That's why he's talking about "genetic legacy"
Animals have sex to reproduce.
A male animal won't have sex and not nut in the female animal.
He's applying that to humans.
Red pill and so called "alpha males" ALWAYS reference the animal kingdom.
Most dudes in their 40s can barely afford one kid.U are gay if u 40 with less than 5 kids
fukking idiot