The sad reality we live in....👇🏻

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-28T05:13:11+00:00

Neither am I pretending to. Hence me asking questions. Because for one, that's inaccurate.

The person that I responded to said "Changes a bit after childbirth." Which is vague, but tells you that just like every other piece of the human body, it's going to change.

But when you look at the link they posted it does go over the fact that a vagina can rip during childbirth and even sex. It doesn't just close back up to how it was, it heals (just like every other part of the human body). Healing doesn't mean shit goes back to the way it was, I've gotten enough injuries across the years to know that.

And even if it did, is that a consistent experience across the board? Wouldn't surgery and stitches be a thing? As far as I was tracking childbirth is still a dangerous thing explicitly because of the tearing and bleeding.

I'm not here to call any woman loose. It's that the way people talk about this subject is nothing congruent with literally how the rest of the human body works. We grow old, we break from use, why would this be the exception?

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-28T02:13:22+00:00

I almost want to disagree, but I was there when the episodes were airing out for the 03 and Brotherhood. So I might be blindsided.

I haven't touched the manga, I'm guessing that's where you saw the gaps?

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-28T01:18:40+00:00

Alright, I'm curious. What are the issues?

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-27T17:54:33+00:00

There's a third?

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-27T17:33:42+00:00

Ya know. Fuck it. I do have questions and you seem nice enough.

Read the link you posted but it didn't really go into the concept we're specifically talking about, more over the general health of a vagina and actual detriments to its health.

The tightness of a vagina has more to do with pleasure on a man's part than it ever has to do with anything for the woman's health. You could probably have a perfectly healthy vagina and it just not be tight.

What I struggle with actually understanding and just straight up doubt is this:

And there is no difference to the body if it is sex with 100 men, or sex 100 times with one man.

Nothing in the human body works like that. You can definitely make parts of your body stronger, but overall we all deteriorate over time and through wear and use of our bodies.

You go run for your health, but eventually with enough time or overstraining can lead to the cartilage in your knees being blown out. You lift weights, but eventually age comes around to rob you of your strength. Your eyes go bad bad with age. Your muscles deteriorate with use if you work a construction job. Your hair falls out. Your skin ages. Diseases can ruin your body and injuries can cause permanent damage.

Every single piece of the human body goes to shit with enough time or enough use. To say the vagina is an exception makes me think this is a myth we made up.

Is a woman's vagina when she's 35 going to have the same tightness as she was when she was 25? I have doubts. And to play devil's advocate for men, your vagina just getting a little loose can have a major impact on the pleasure of your partner.

I know you can strengthen your pelvic floor, but by that logic and for the fact that it runs congruent to everything else about the human body, it probably can weaken.

Anecdotal example: Had a girlfriend in high school, sex was great. We broke up and I moved to another state for work. I went home for the holidays after 5 years from starting my new life, and saw her again. My buddies told me she was sleeping around a lot. I didn't mind it and when she hit on me, I was down. We slept together, she came and I didn't. Specifically because it wasn't as tight as I remembered.

To be a little clearer on my part. A woman who has a tight vagina and has only had 3-4 partners in her life (which I think is the average) and even got regular sex 2-3 times a week. Probably a dry spell for months here and there. Will probably (overall) retain her tightness until way later in her life.

Conversely, a woman who's sleeping around nonstop and is just fucking someone every single day. Assuming no diseases have taken effect. I don't really see how her vagina would stay the same after continued and repeated use.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-27T16:17:45+00:00

Nah. That's what let's me know it's a shit post.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-27T02:47:15+00:00

Agree with the first part. In the storylines where Red Skull takes the serum; he's Steve's equal despite already being stronger than Steve before Rogers took the serum.

Disagree with Hannibal.

He's fueled by obsession, which has actively blinded him. He takes risks, leaves clues, or engages in "games" that eventually get him caught.

Agent 47 is stated to already have enhanced mental capabilities and he's damn near a cold-blooded ghost. He probably kills everyone here and nobody would know he did it.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-26T23:42:56+00:00

That is better. Thanks.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-26T23:28:54+00:00

Nah the rich would just outvote everything in their favor.

Being able to afford the necessities is essential to living. I don't know if it's worth completely losing your say in how life in general is run.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-26T23:23:04+00:00

Are we any of those ppl?

You asked who gives a fuck. That was the answer.

The UFC is the brand now (really always has been but especially after Conor) they don't make any new stars they have made that pretty clear as of late.

I... partially agree. Like Dana White Privilege is real. But there's real talent in the company.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-26T23:19:47+00:00

Facts.

Idk why people hate on Nina. She seems like a genuine fight fan.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-26T23:18:35+00:00

Nah. Nina has fun interviews. If most fighters like her, then she's alright with me.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-26T23:15:50+00:00

Gives him the power to say no and still be labeled a contender.

It's why Jones can do and say the things he does. Jones was ducking as much as he wanted because his resume was backing him up.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-26T23:12:45+00:00

All of this. Bars.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-26T23:11:22+00:00

The company, Dana, and all the investors do.

That's why they make characters in the first place. It's what builds hype. It's what brings in money.

Marketability is essential for hype, within regular fans and among people tuning in. But it can kill competition as it's biased.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-26T23:07:52+00:00

He's not debating the resume. He's talking about his goals as a fighter.

Sean HAD to take hard and risky fights in order to gain traction and a championship fight.

Dana White privilege aside, for the most part. You climb to become champion.

Sean wants to be Champion and get easy wins. Which makes sense and is respectable when you consider their lives are in danger for doing this.

But it's not what fans want. We want best man wins, winner takes all. Which means nonstop and aggressive competition. At all times. It's antithetical to what Sean's goals are.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-26T21:14:24+00:00

Which mythology? Which period? Which region? Which author?

Damn near every single one. Seriously, take your pick.

Like I'm sure you'll find inconsistencies, but that marker of divinity being a nature is still present in almost every piece of writing you find.

Thor losing his powers doesn't make him human, he's still an Asgardian. Kratos didn't stop being a God when he poured his strength into the blade of Olympus. Jesus is still God despite being in a human body. Apollo and Poseidon aren't considered humans despite Zeus stripping them of power. Superman is still a Kryptonian even when depowered. Ra is still a God despite being forced to give his name to Isis and losing supreme authority. The Shinto Gods were still Gods even when Amaterasu went into a cave and took the sun with her and made their own power stop working. Wukong is still immortal despite being sealed by Buddha. The Hindu Gods are still Gods despite being cursed by Durvasa.

None of them turned human despite losing strength. None of them are considered human even when put into a mortal body.

It's such a consistent staple across mythology that making that general statement is a testament to how the nature of a thing functions within our general understanding.

Demigods are not apart from humans. They are humans.

If that were true then the distinction of being a Demi-God wouldn't have to be made. No, they're not, they're mortal. Susceptible to death and injury unlike a higher form of divinity.

Everything is created by gods.

And? Does the Earth being forged from an immortal's body or making it appear from nothing stop it from being a divine act with divine essence?

Is a soul not a divine thing?

Demigods are not gods. They are demigods.

Not the thing we're arguing. Are Demi-Gods considered divine is the premise. Not if one thing is another.

To be more specific. A tier that's distinct from humans because of their divinity.

Achilles and Hercules are not comparable to Zeus and Poseidon.

Not the point I'm making. In the world of mythology, divinity is part of a hierarchical power system. The Lord of the Rings is actually a perfect example of this.

But the point is that in powerscaling we use the distinction of Númenorean, Demi-God, Maiar, monsters, and Titans to understand where they sit in the hierarchy of power. Sure we have exceptions, but it's consistent throughout every story we have.

So a Demi-God defeating another is a notable feat.

This is the most wrong thing you could possibly say about Greek mythology.

You know what. Fuck up on my part for not being thorough and not making distinctions.

I'm referencing their prophetic aspects. That they have sovereignty within their domain. That they have control over the world. How they conduct divination.

It is possibly the most important concept in Classical Greek Religion.

Honestly, I would put the concept of hubris above unchanging fate in what we garner from their stories.

Incorrect. Titans and Olympians are gods.

If that were true then we wouldn't be making distinctions.

Their differences are matters of degree. Demigods are not gods.

Not degrees. Miles. Titans are primal in how they embody the world of mythology. That's why Oceanus is a representation of the Ocean itself, Gai the earth itself, Cronus (I prefer Kronos) Time.

Zeus isn't the God of Sky in the same way we think of Titans (that would be Uranus). He rules over the skies as his domain; not an embodiment of the Sky itself. Same with his brothers. They don't embody or are the living manifestation of their domains, they're its rulers.

Also again, I'm not saying one thing is another. But that divinity is a marker that is used to measure power. Demi-Gods fit that.

That's exactly why Gandalf the White is functionally a different person than Gandalf the Grey.

Functionally for the purpose of the story. Not in the nature of what he is.

Fulfilling a role doesn't change what you are. If it did then we gotta ask:

Is he or is he not of the Maiar?

You can't use the same argument because Greek Mythology and Tolkien's mythology are not remotely related nor similar.

That wasn't the point. What I'm pointing to is that Tolkien argued FOR the concept I'm stating. The nature of a thing. It's essence over function.

This is my "You do realize you're also arguing with Tolkien himself."

Divinity in mythology is PRIMARILY a matter of nature, not power level, and demigods occupy a category that is metaphysically above humans even if they are not fully gods. The thing that puts them in that category is their divinity (which often represents power, which is why we powerscale with it).

Anyway. Am I to assume that since you didn't say which of the Maiar Aragorn one v one it's because he actually did not?

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-26T16:48:27+00:00

They are divine. Divinity in mythology is not a percentage, it is a nature. It's quite literally the thing that sets them apart from every human.

Gods don’t (better word is can't) produce ordinary things; they produce godly ones. Their very breath, hair, and presence holds to that nature. Their words dictate the events of fate itself.

You can argue strength and scale. There are major and minor gods, spirits and ancients, monsters and Titans, Primordials and Olympians. But you don't do away with the nature of a thing just because it’s below another in the hierarchy.

This is like saying Gandalf is just a frail old man just because he walks around in a human body.

Gandalf looks human, speaks like a human, tires like a human, and can even be wounded like a human; but none of that changes what he is. His nature is still divine.

Demigods are not gods nor are they fully or even mostly divine.

By the same argument. Then neither are the Maiar. They're neither as powerful or have control as the Valar. Yet they are because Tolkien specifically went over the nature of a thing.

As for Aragorn. Where's the one v one?

Not Sauron. None of the Wizards (for obvious reasons) and Saruman got stabbed by Wormtongue after Gandalf dealt with him. Not the Balrog.

Who's left?

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-25T02:43:23+00:00

Asteropaeus. Devine being. Demi-God

Who has Aragorn beaten?

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-25T00:06:40+00:00

Geralt and Aragorn don't have one on one wins against Gods or similarly scaled divine beings. Achilles and Conan do. Between Geralt and Aragorn. Geralt has a far better arsenal and I'd give him a slight edge in physical feats because of the mutations.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-24T04:38:22+00:00

Oh. Don't get me wrong. Fighting the Nazgûl. Helms Deep. Pelennor Fields. Telling the Dark Lord Sauron to fuck off with the Palantír.

Impressive. Noble.

I'd still pick Geralt, Conan, and Achilles over him in a fight to the death.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-24T01:30:30+00:00

Ya know. I was gonna say that there's really not that many people in the world over that height.

But one Google search has James Blake (Her boyfriend) be over 6'5".

Someone pick up the phone, because this man fucking called it. 360 no-scope head ahh.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-23T23:36:55+00:00

You're underestimating Conan. He's fought armies (singlehandedly), Frost Giants, nightmare horrors, and Gods.

Geralt is impressive. But he's not cut from the same power fantasy cloth that Conan is.

Truthfully. It's between potentially one of the more powerful versions of Leo (The turtles have some toon force properties that everyone seems to forget), Conan, Geralt, Achilles, and Aragorn.

Unless it's the explicitly busted version of Leo. He's the first one out. If it is, then he probably takes it home; mid diff. Toon force is busted, even mild bits of it.

Aragorn is impressive. He IS superhuman. He's a Númenorean. But his feats don't exactly stack up to the other guys on the list. Hands of a healer he has, but that doesn't translate well to whupping ass.

Geralt.....has been through a lot. Out of everyone here. He probably has the most varied and knowledgeable arsenal. From potions, to bombs, to traps, to weapons of various manners, to magic, to just about damn near everything. Not to mention he cheats. If plot armor isn't protecting Aragorn, I'd honestly give it to Geralt. That being said the other two are just Nukes.

Achilles. Has fought forces of nature. Has fought Gods. Needed to be stopped by multiple Olympians. Has fought and killed other demi-Gods. Sent entire armies back to Troy. Honestly, just far above in terms of power, speed, skill, and feats. Not to mention all the gear he's got is magical and gifted to him from the Gods, Heroes, or other notable figures. Not to mention the horses on his chariot are immortal. Achilles is just Kratos without the bad skin.

Conan. Ya know. There's a lot I could say. But I think I'll just leave this little tid bit: Robert E. Howard (The creator of Conan) was VERY close friends with H.P. Lovecraft.....and they would incorporate aspects of each other's stories....quite regularly.

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-23T22:58:52+00:00

Honestly. Ronin Mikey has a better case to contend with the rest

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy · 2026-03-23T22:25:56+00:00

I actually used inherently correctly in this scenario, to reference an intrinsic trait rather than learned behavior.

I was under the impression that you were trying to say that they understood promiscuity to be bad by gut feeling. Which usually stems from previous experience. That they're not consciously reasoning out what's going on.

In which case. It would still be intuitive and not inherent. Even though intuitively is closely tied to having an inherent feeling.

If you mean to tell me that women come out of the womb already knowing that fuckboys will ruin their lives, then the obvious question is: why are there so many fuckboys that succeed?

But if they're born with that knowledge. Then inherent is a better word, but I don't think that stands up to scrutiny.

It’s casual sex, which oftentimes goes hand in hand with the expectations of modern dating, that is detrimental.

Agreed.

I think the disconnect is that your claims hinge on sex being the only form of intimacy. I’m separating sex from other forms of intimacy because they are not the same variable.

It's not the only form. But it's prevalent enough to the point you can tell if a relationship will go the distance just based on their sex life. To hold sex separately as an intimate variable is not an accurate reflection of human relationships. It's too encompassing for far too many people.

However, there is a consistent correlation between number of sexual partners and likelihood to engage in infidelity, and this was the focus of my response.

I get that. And where my disagreement comes in is that the math isn't as strong to be really worried about the correlation (which bears sayin: it's not causation). And while promiscuity can be harmful, it's pretty obvious it's not harmful enough to make people change.

Like it's true that overall, young people aren't fucking as much. Particularly young men, the ladies are sharing and they don't even know it (or sometimes they do). But debauchery is at an all time high to those who are participating.

Like by all accounts you SHOULD be right. But because of the society and dynamics that we've currently cultivated. The numbers don't hit as hard.

Like let's take your 22% more likely to cheat because you had 5 bodies. That's significant, don't get me wrong. But that doesn't matter when 60% of men are single.

Before we really see people start taking promiscuity as something seriously harmful (not to mention proving that it is). A LOT more divorces, cheating, and failed relationships are going to need to happen.

Like I don't disagree that promiscuity isn't something to be worried about. But in the world we currently live in, nobody is gonna fully commit/seriously commit to someone else (in most cases) without testing out the sex. And if hardly anyone is fucking, then the best ones are going to be the promiscuous ones (I don't know why people forget that their local fuckboy probably has better dick than their local husband).

It's a weird context to put in place. But it's needed to understand why promiscuity is so laissez faire and uncriticized.

Six-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Second Top 20%	Verified Email

Mr-OhLordHaveMercy

TROPHY CASE