>This made the missionary generation’s eyeballs pop out of their sockets as they cum inside their pants
>>220564178@grok, make her a few pounds heavier around the bust and the rump and the thighs, make her bodice tighter and her décolletage lower, adjust her posture into a more aesthetically pleasing angle
>>220564178>cum inside their pantsFor two bits a guy could fuck her all night, whores were common and every town of any size had at least one bordello with big cities having entire "red light" districts.
>>220565024>this is what they took from youSad.
>>220565108That’s a man
>>220565317Fun fact: Prior to 1876 women weren't even legally considered ‘people’ by the United States Supreme Court. So one could argue if you wanted to have sex with another ‘person’ you were gay ‘cause people were only considered men lol.
>>220565629And how exactly were the jews involved in that Supreme Court decision?
>>220565666Nigga IDFK go read a fucking history book or something
>>220565629>Prior to 1876 women weren't even legally considered ‘people’ by the United States Supreme Court.Take me back.
>>220565024>>220565108It is even easier now.Women shot their cunt and tits for free all over the internet and there are entire websites dedicated to prozzies. Just look at adultwork
>>220568716>It is even easier now.IDK man, have you ever tried wacking off without the internet? It’s honestly kinda hard to jerk when they’re isnt a near endless supply ready available wank material. I’d argue men were more likely to go to a bar/brothel and pay to fuck cuz it was unironically easier than trying to jerk it to a low res black-and-white photo illuminated by candlelight (or more likely a mediocre porn illustration ‘cuz photos were more expensive then gooner prints). Also they had really weird pseudoscientific ideas like jacking off regularly would made you retarded (yes this was a thing) but somehow nutting on/in a bitch didn’t cause the same issue. History is truly stranger than fiction.
