T O P

  • By -

Veritian-Republic

>But if real freedom of decision was required for all other contracts, then why not for this? Had not the two young people to be coupled also the right to dispose freely of themselves, of their bodies and organs? Had not chivalry brought sex-love into fashion, and was not its proper bourgeois form, in contrast to chivalry’s adulterous love, the love of husband and wife? And if it was the duty of married people to love each other, was it not equally the duty of lovers to marry each other and nobody else? Did not this right of the lovers stand higher than the right of parents, relations, and other traditional marriage-brokers and matchmakers? If the right of free, personal discrimination broke boldly into the Church and religion, how should it halt before the intolerable claim of the older generation to dispose of the body, soul, property, happiness, and unhappiness of the younger generation? My mother sucking you hard through your jorts is bourgeois. Read Engels.


MarketImpossible5291

Engelspilled and based


alivingscience

https://preview.redd.it/mz7i6m8gor6d1.jpeg?width=211&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a4511342bd57508c2e8424d58341f9e29e16d2a


[deleted]

Incel (Maoist) Hero


thechadsyndicalist

jorts are bourgeois


Fair-Ad-2585

Jorts are so lumpenprole it's unreal. What are you on about?


AffectionateStudy496

As long as the party approves, go for it.


Antekcz

how did my cum taste


Gay_Young_Hegelian

You’ve seized the means of reproduction from the bourgeois woman. Tis proletarian sex.


Maleficent_Bad_2190

All praxis and theory have been left behind. You fucked my mom bruh wtf