>>17743476
Any refutation of you comes primarily from a condemnation of hedonistic indulgence. This is what sexuality, when not pursued for procreative purposes, fundamentally is. You can contort yourself into ever more obscene rhetorical positions but I argue you would not feel the need to do so if you did not understand on some level that what you want is deleterious and a rejection of life. You could likely dedicate your entire life to studying a certain species of tree and never run out of new discoveries to behold the grandeur of this world we live it. You wouldn't have to justify this desire to know more about the trees to anyone beyond the simple phrase, "It interests me". Funnily enough the ever greater lengths you go to to justify your perversions proves that you have deep insecurity about its expression.
I predict a cope and then maybe a seethe with a disjoint probability P(C) = .5, P(S) = .5 | P(C then S) = .25
