so anyway I graduated from college a virgin and went to my eternal reward at a T14 law school

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922208&forum_id=2#35632767)

But after I only got one callback from the entire V100, I was too embarrassed to talk to her or anyone else. I saw her again later in the year and she had gained 10-15 pounds and developed acne.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922208&forum_id=2#35632831)

basically zero effort involved in getting laid

I had cute fuckbuddies who would hit me up after class, after going out, whenever, and never took them on a single date.

now: minimum $50 and hours wasted on grating small talk just to maybe cop sex with a washed up 6

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922208&forum_id=2#35632879)

even if they would be down for it, I would feel uncomfortable with them just showing up at my place without ever meeting

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922208&forum_id=2#35632924)

it's essentially a brothel where the whores pay

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922208&forum_id=2#35633072)

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3922208&forum_id=2#35633189)