Tallglassofwater's Topics (265)

Dude chill out hundreds of yaois have familie related ukes and semes fucking. It’s yaoi it’s a thing and it’s a fetish as well for some so if you don’t like it move on don’t shame anyone. It’s fiction and many realize that and it being a fiction is where it ends so don’t get to pent up over it

Do you understand what you’re saying?????? That is literally incest, like fucking a relative, it’s not a fetish it’s disgusting. If you want to continue reading shit like this, go the fuck ahead :|

Damn bro take a chill pill (￣∇￣")

lmao but they have a point, his coworkers really overreacted :/

So, slavery is only a problem if slaves are selected on the basis of race? And if the slave owners are "nice" to their slaves, slavery is fine? In that case, here's some history that you may have ignored before by the virtue of being a Twitter liberal who is only playing at being a liberal because it's trendy and hip at the moment and has more to say about the politics of the US than his/her own country. I am reasonably sure that you aren't an American because I would expect an American to be more educated and sensitized in this issue than to believe that this statement, "slaves because of their, not race and in many countries, slavery still exists and enslaves people based on their class", would serve as an excuse. If you are an American, you really should have been raised better to know not to sympathize with regressive countries and societies that are still awaiting renaissance where human rights abuse has become baked into their administrative DNA over centuries of dynastic autocracy and ideological and political authoritarianism.

The very logic that you've put forward to justify the slavery depicted in the story and the real life slavery that was and is being practiced in other parts of world can be use to argue that slavery in America should never have been outlawed either, because according to you there is nothing wrong about slavery in principle, it should just have been policed instead. After all, even the slavery in the US was about class. African-American slavery may have eventually become about colour because the target class became synonymous with it due to iteration over generations while subjected to racially selective pressure. But the earliest Africans weren't sold into slavery in the first place because of their colour but because of their economic and political circumstances. They were the most helpless people from areas with relatively smaller, fragmented administrative units that had low political and economic influence and visibility on the global scale. You can look at the geographical statistics of victims of modern day slavery and worker exploitation today and you will see the same political and economic factors at play in determining which village, even in a country that is considered racially homogeneous, will be obliterated by political greed and have its people forced into what is, practically, slavery and which one in the same country will have candidates swarming into it during election season, see the candidates bend over backwards and leap over each other in offering them enticing benefits in their manifesto and will supply good numbers in votes, manpower and/or money to the political machinery.

Most of Africa would be categorised as "black" by the racial definition. Yet victims of the Atlantic slave trade came from a few specific regions of Africa. Take a look at the modern day countries in Africa that supplied slaves back then, and contrast that with those who didn't while keeping in mind the level of administrative centralization the respective regions had at the time. You'll quickly realise that it was not about the race to begin with. Instead, it came to uniquely target one race in American context because of selection factors that were fundamentally about class.

Not every drop of African ancestry among Americans that is older than civil war came from enslaved Africans. Plenty of black African immigrants or people with African ancestry lived there both during the colonial era and after the nation was founded who had never been enslaved, at least under American legal system. They were racially discriminated against and would be subject to the same racial segregationist policies as people who had been freed from slavery or were descended from enslaved people, but they were never subjected to slavery. If slavery in America was designed with race in mind, you would have seen more racial diversity in the enslaved population.

Atlantic slave trade, like every other instance of slavery in the world, had been about opportunism. It was targeting the most vulnerable and the most unprotected. Slavery was, is and always will be abuse and trafficking. And the only commonalities that all victims of trafficking share are not things like race, class, gender etc. but factors like invisibility, apathetic administration and inaccessibility to police and legal protection. And slavery based on class is equally as evil and repugnant as slavery that disproportionately targets a racial category. Anyone who thinks otherwise is most definitely making excuses for historical, systematic and legally sanctioned exploitation of vulnerable people that the community or country that he/she identifies with has committed at some point in history. Whether you enslave someone because they are a poor, homeless, nameless person who is easy prey or you kidnap someone and enslave them because you don't like the way they look, you are still the same kind of monster in either case.

As for your second argument, a lot of the enslaved people in America were treated as any other servant or employee. There are abundant historical records of that aspect as well. They were being treated "nicely" as you like to say. Enslaved people frequently occupied positions of significant responsibility and importance in the household. Most estates had a hierarchical segregation among its slaves and not all slaves were treated the same. And most slave owners had slaves not because they were psychologically messed up and wanted to own people just for shits and giggles but because it was economical, institutionalised and just a thing that everybody who had a large estate had to do, both for pragmatic reasons and political reasons. For them it was just a thing that everybody did. Just like everybody has unpaid interns or everybody gets to pressure another to engage in sexual intercourse once they're married to them. As a result, a good chunk of slave owners tried to be "nice" to their "property". Their enslaved subordinates were well-fed, well-clothed, given access to good living spaces, good education and training and were entrusted with important responsibilities, just like any other employee. Some people even sponsored their enslaved subordinates into higher education. Plenty of enslaved people were highly skilled in highly specialised fields. That's not going to happen if the boss didn't want it. So, do you think that it should have okay for those people to keep slaves since they were being "nice" to them? Do keep it mind that endorsing that conclusion is the same thing are arguing that people should not be persecuted for kidnapping and confining someone as long as the victim feels that the accused was being nice to them. I guess, according to you, it is okay to keep humans as livestock as long as you are feeding and clothing them well and acting friendly with them.

Who's romanticizing slavery? You are.

The MC is a fucking slaver as disgusting as any other. He and his family are human traffickers. Those people that he and family kidnap and sell are not their friends, they are their livestock. The farmer is not the friend of the chicken, cow, pig or horse that he/she farms for food or labour. They are not even in the same realm as the farmer's pet companion animals, let alone the farmer's human friend. MC is farming humans. He imprisons people, deprives them of their freedom and rights and maintains them on his terms to suit his purposes, with the objective of selling them out to customers for various needs. He is, without any ifs and buts, a deplorable human trafficker.

You can still enjoy the porno if that's what you want but don't make excuses for the inexcusable just because you can't handle being called immoral for sympathizing with a disgusting character. Don't try to deny and defend what's plainly and openly written. And definitely don't try to bring the discussion into real life into it and try to minimise the gross inhumanity and evil of slavery that destroyed lives and generations in the past and continues to do so in the present. Slavery is horrific and evil, regardless of the colour, ethnicity, nationality, class, caste, gender, sexual orientation or whatever else of the victims and the oppressors.

And here i thought i was the only one. I've always been craving for these kind of sex scenes. They give off a different mood. Sensual and intimate. And that is what this manga is about. Chef's kiss

Oh yes... the intimacy was too much for my heart actually.. loneliness hit me like wtf? i wanna be caressed, be wanted, be desired and be loved just like that too...

Dude you literally just described almosot everybody that reads bl (⊙…⊙ )

Haha i see.. sorry, but it's actually soothing to know that i'm not the only one who feels this way.. (⊙…⊙ )

Pftahahah dude

same i came back to read the comments to see if it changed and it still hasn’t. not giving it a chance

Is there a omegagaverse versión?

Read this

http://www.mangago.zone/home/album/141161/

OMG that’s so cute the baby omg

IKR