I wasn't the one who brought it up, you'd have to put the Br*tish in timeout.
Nah nah nah.
1. RedRage makes a joke about Pippa on an alt retweeting some pokemon merch getting made or released or w/e with a yabbai emote. The subtext is she wants to fuck that pokemon, which is gross and dangerous.
2. U say it was taken out of context (she's a furry)
3. To be 100% fair, your boyfriend makes a sexual joke that the inanimate object representing an animal in a video game has a higher chance of fucking her than you do, when she is your #1 object of desire
4. You cope that you have a chance, curiously neglecting that the object can still in a way "fuck" her
5. Your boyfriend picks up on this obvious error that I'm sure you knowingly laid.
6. Coping that the object isn't for sex, which contradicts many of your own arguments
and denies her proclivities to make facsimiles of entities she wants to fuck for her own pleasure. Again, you knew and know this presently. You laid more good biat.
7. Now enters the Brit, he brings up another instance of her sexual degeneracy that you want to be apart of but poking a hole in your logic from 6.
8. You then imply that because the knife isn't for strictly penetrative purposes he failed at his persuasion, but concede that it's for foreplay and you thus draw a sperious distinction between foreplay and sex. Again, you're thinking about Pippa fucking.
9. I and a few others reply spelling out the cope but I note my dissatisfaction that you are once again talking about the steamer in sexual situations.
10. You multi-reply. In part to 9 blaming the goys. But it was you who through all this made seemingly serious (and bait) posts to further the discussion towards a sexual ends for your own gratification.
We are now all but caught up on this situation. You took a joke that was on topic and expressed displeasure, then through your cunning, drug the thread towards overt sexual discourse.