BigBearSean

Which circles back to the facts that A.) the justices are ignoring the 14th Amendment and its due process clause by revoking a woman's right to privacy that was built upon it, and B.) Thomas' own marriage is partially upheld by that exact same legal justification and precedent, making him a damn hypocrite to ignore "reviewing" his marriage but being totally fine destroying others.

Oh no! I transposed dates but my exact same point still remains that THE LATER REFERENCES THE FORMER AS PART OF ITS LEGAL JUSTIFICATION. Good thing you keep ignoring that point or you might have to account for judical precedent or something...

That's willful ignorance right there. Especially given that Loving v Virginia REFERENCES Roe v Wade as the foundation for its argument at least a half dozen times. Again, you simply don't want to believe facts that exist counter to your beliefs. [think before following links] https://www.insider.com/roe-wade-loving-virginia-interracial-marriage-scotus-overturns-2022-6?amp [think before following links] https://nypost.com/2022/06/27/jim-obergefell-blasts-justice-clarence-thomas-over-roe-ruling/amp/ [think before following links] https://amp.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article261339032.html [think before following links] https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/11/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-gay-rights-contraceptives-fertility-treatments [think before following links] https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/23055107/supreme-court-abortion-roe-wade-constitution As far as the logical falacy of your final statement, "have we ever had in the past a true just society by our modern standards?", there's an explicit reason the Founding Fathers stated that they intended to create a "more perfect union." Justice is a journey as much a destination. I don't get why you threw Gandhi and Tutu in this discussion, but if you're trying to interject some bad argument about peaceful protests, let me remind you that today in the 4th of July. And that American UNpeacefully protested for their governmental autonomy when peaceful protests failed for generations. Sometimes to ensure your rights and freedoms, to build a more perfect and more just society, you have to tell hypocritical hate-mongerers like Thomas to go to fucking hell. And back it up with action. Because he EXPLICITLY stated he has no intention of ever stopping. And did so 30 years ago. See where we are today and his THREATS against LGBT people and even married straight women using contraception. I WILL call out his race because it makes him 3x the hypocrite. Lie to yourself and call that "racism" if you want. But it's a FACT that he's attacking human rights specifically so that he'll never feel the affects.

You completely ignored every single thing that I stated about legal precedent and why race DOES directly matter to his "reasoning" in determining how to overthrow abortion rights. THE. EXACT. SAME. LEGAL. STANDING. Is used to support both Roe v Wade and Loving v Virginia. You CAN'T claim women don't have a right to privacy in regards to their own bodies and abortion while ALSO claiming you have a right to privacy in regards to your own and your marriage. It's a "for me, but not for thee" hypocrisy where Thomas protects HIS rights while directly targeting THE. EXACT. SAME. PRECEDENT. For being his "reasoning" to destroy protections based upon them. Ignoring Thomas' race would be a DISHONEST conversation because it would claim law exists in a bubble independent of each ruling instead of heavily upon precedent guided by the rulings and mentalities of those before. It would DISHONESTLY ignore how Thomas intentionally targeting women for enslavement while leaving himself conveniently consequence free of his own actions. Calling out a black man married to a white woman for destroying a protection HIS OWN MARRIAGE is secured by isn't racism. It's speaking truth to power and holding them accountable for their actions and hate. It has to be done in order to recreate a just society.

But his skin color, and in particular his WIFE'S skin color, does matter. Because the EXACT SAME reasoning he gave to dismiss abortion rights is the EXACT SAME reason mixed marriage rights exist. In fact, Loving v Virginia even references Roe v Wade at least a half dozen times. As does Obergefell and several more cases. He's a KNOWING HYPOCRITE because he wants his cake of right to privacy and bodily autonomy while denying it to everyone else he hates too. Fuck that asshole.

Some of the comments here are just demeaning and entitled. You don't have a right to another man's dick. Even if you are fucking him. Don't like it? Move on without judgement or kink shaming. I'm a bottom. I love BDSM and M/s play. It's also INCREDIBLY difficult for other guys to get me off. As if it's an over stimulation that doesn't quite hurt, but certainly overloads my body's nerves and shuts things down. I don't hate having guys play with my dick, but it gets to be too much or exhauting fast. Good thing I love being fucked. But I do have a huge libido. And I do jerk off 3+ times a day, every day, and have since I was 9. So what chastity does for me is builds that anticipation and pressure. All while focusing my thoughts on my master or whoever holds the key. Both psychologically and physically it's like having their hand wrapped around my cock and controlling it. Delaying my orgasm and keeping me horny and in anticipation to be used by them. It's a total mindfuck. Especially if you go long term. I don't see myself as "unmanned" or any sexist bull like that. It's an obedience and training method no different than a collar or hood in pup play or sports gear or chains and rope. The dom gets off on the power trip. And I get off on surrendering and being used. Like any good sex, we EACH get to share in what we want. I don't want a guy messing with my dick unless it's BDSM because it's just too much for me. So chastity works wonders as a happy middle ground where I can have constant, low level stimulation in the background. And he gets a mindfucked fucktoy to use whenever he drops his pants. Don't judge other's kinks unless you understand, and have experienced them, first.

I've been blowing a guy off and on for years. He's pretty repellant. Someone I'd never really have as a friend. Would certainly never consider dating. I don't even particularly like how he enjoys getting his blowjobs (I like to just focus on the dick, but he also wants his nipples twisted hard, making things too "busy"). Healso smokes, so his cum tastes like shit too. And I keep trying to get him to fuck me, but he doesn't (hard dick issues?). But you know what I like and why I keep going back? Because he takrs dirty, doesn't expect more than to blow his load and light chat, and treats me like the proper slut he knows I want to be. Everything about him feels "dirty" in some way (though surprisingly not HIV+), and makes me always feel a bit gross doing it and swallowing his seed. But you know what? That's part of the charm with him. A throw away, raunch pig I can just take loads from NSA who treats me like a throw away raunch cocksucker/cumdump who will mindlessly accept them. Been trying to get him to organize a bangbang for me with his other dirty friends. After reading up on this thread, sounds like I need to text him now. Lol!