Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps. The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random
>>663456435 So fucking true, too bad we're on /b/, and logic goes out the window for these closeted fags who are so far in denial about what they are they'll say anything they have to. i.e. "it's not gay cuz they're feminine"
Liking a guy with feminine qualities is just liking a gay guy. Sorry facts, but you are actually faggots.
>>663457999 no one gives a fuck about your faggoty sensual orientation or who you fuck, retard
on the other hand these faggots going ou of their way to make it seem like liking cock is in any way liking something feminine need to erase themselves from the gene pool before humanity devolves any further thanks to their autists
>>663458776 Nope that's pretty much what the whole god damned discussion is about. If you fuck a trap your gay. It's always the same fucking discussion on here seven days a week. Who the fuck cares. If it looks good with it's lips wrapped around my penis I could give a fuck less.
>>663455648 because I might be the one who will have to become a trap.
I generally don't relate to most guys, for example I don't understand the general obsession with football, its just a bunch of big sweaty muscular men tackling and rubbing up against each other.
Also people have always told me that I was physically really attractive but most girls never really liked me, and all the girls I've dated so far coincidentally turned out to be bi without me initially knowing until after a few weeks into the relationship when they tell me. They don't always last though and the time between them is usually pretty difficult.
Perhaps I was meant to be a girl, maybe then I'll have better luck with girls.
>>663460488 she should have waited until after the singularity where she could just upload her mind and then construct a new female body to download her mind into, if not simulate one in a matrix as an avatar.
I am not at all impressed by the current level of sex change technology.
>>663457632 You must be bisexual in that case. You can't be gay if you're attracted to what looks like a female. Unless you're talking about fetishizing women's clothes and dressing up guys etc. Like you're already attracted to the guy and then just find it titillating to dress him in women's clothes..
If you think that simply having short hair can make someone look like a man, that means you think a dude simply having long hair makes him look like a woman. It's time to come out of that closet, friend.
>>663463564 Nothing false about it. It's closeted dudes like you who seem to be EXTREMELY tense about attraction. It's all about isolated floating vaginas that make you breathe a sigh of relief and say, "Oh, now I can be attracted to this because it has a vagina. I'm not a fag. For sure I'm not a fag. I'm not a fag at all. I'm not a fag. This has a vagina, so I'm not a fag."
>>663463770 I didn't say she looks like a man. I said she looks like a 12-year old boy in the OP photo, which is a completely reasonable statement. But since you're a gay with a penchant for boys, you tell other people to come out of the closet instead of facing the truth about your own deviancy.
Don't try to make this about semantics, fucktard - if you think that person looks *male* because she doesn't have short hair, this means you think the superficial determines the sex of an individual - this is how closeted gay men justify their attraction to men.
>>663465634 Technically yes, but heterosexual attraction is not based on the vagina. The vagina just happens to be the end goal of the reproductive drive, but in itself it is invisible, and without shaving even the vulva is invisible. The shemale fetishism doesn't start from being attracted to dicks.
I'm the guy that fucktard is replying to- Who's saying homosexuality is deviant? I couldn't care less who you want to fuck - the problem I have is men wanting to call themselves straight when they're attracted to simply feminine looking men. My issue isn't with sexual preference, it's with faggots in denial.
I mean how did you decide that homosexuals are any more deviant then say your average "player" if you fuck every piece of trim what make you any better or less promiscuous then your average homosexual?
>>663466199 It's not an ethical standard. You are still stuck with the idea I'm using the word deviant in some ethical sense. I'm not. Homosexuality is objectively a deviant sexual orientation. I'm not condemning gays when I say that.
>>663465876 > The shemale fetishism doesn't start from being attracted to dicks.
Yes it does, that's the whole point of the fetish, otherwise you'd just be looking at pictures of aesthetically pleasing women instead of shemales.
Despite what you tell yourself, straight men find pussy attractive. Neat tiny ones, soft fleshy meaty ones, girly trimmed ones, hairy womanly ones, the taste, the feel, the smell, i could go on.
Trapfags feel that way about dick. They take a perfect 10/10 female form and in their eyes it is enhanced by adding a dick to tickle and lick and suck and look at while you're fucking. They find dick attractive instead of pussy.
If you think a woman (or man) can be so easily manufactured, your reduction of the male and female sexes down to the superficial is literally pitiful. The nuances of a woman go well beyond shaving, long hair and makeup, and it's actually nauseating to think that this is all it takes for men like you to classify another man as a woman.
Right, you're bi - I have no problem with that. I couldn't care less who or what you like to fuck, but my not wanting to have sex with men - regardless how feminine YOU might think they appear, is a direct result of my heterosexual orientation.
Look, you fucking moron, he's not saying 'deviant' means bad, it means deviation from the norm - and 'norm' doesn't mean 'good'. Weren't not having a conversation about morality here, you fucking moron.
>>663466717 >>663466717 >>663466717 Finally somebody hit the nail on the head. Yeah they look like fucking girls but they have big veiny cocks which you faggots consider a bonus instead of a dealbreaker.
A guy slamming a lot of chicks is not deviant at all. It might be distasteful, but it's not deviant. Men are biologically programmed to plant a lot of seed. Monogamy is a reproductive strategy that increases the probability of passing on your genes and increasing the survivability of the offspring.
Obviously deadbeat fathers are morally shit-tier. No doubt about that.
>>663467125 But I'm not bi, dude. I'd have no problem being bi or even straight-up gay, but I'm not attracted to guys and masculinity at all. Your view is very unnuanced. Shemale fetishism is not an orientation.
>>663467347 Well, my idea of an effeminate man is closer to a stereotypical effeminate gay guy. If I can't even tell if someone's a born male (with their clothes on) let's say in a grocery store or library, how does it make sense to call that person an "effeminate guy" if I later find out they were born male? It doesn't make sense to me. Might make sense to you, of course.
>>663467562 You literally stated that vagina isnt part of the attraction of females, "just the end goal" in >>663465876 So any homour derived from me having to explain to you how that is wrong only further shows your logical failings.
And I'm not wrong, you do find a feminine form with a penis either more or equally attractive to one without, and find penis more aesthetically pleasing and/or sexually arousing than vagina, to the point where you literally state vaginas don't factor into attractiveness...
...yet you are a fan of shemales. The one thing they have over women is a dick. Liking or not minding dick is the sole thing that makes you a member of the fandom.
I can see you honestly think that you're thinking objectively, but you're really not, guy. I have no problem with gays or bis but you need to know you are one. Stating otherwise is simply false.
It's entirely reasonable to classify an inability or a lack of desire to procreate (arguably the most fundamental drive in all living things) as a deviation from normal. How long homosexuality has 'been around' is utterly irrelevant. Have I reproduced? No. do I care to reproduce? No. is that 'normal'? No. Does it matter morally or ethically? No. Your need to classify homosexuality as normal is born of a desire for social acceptance, not of logic.
>>663468686 This is where you simply don't get it. A penis and balls is the ultimate symbol of masculinity to the human mind. To the point that our buildings, weaponry of war (swords, tanks) etc. resemble the human male phallus. Ya can't even eat a hotdog or banana or lolipop a certain way without getting strange looks because in the back of everyone's mind is "lol penis".
Now you - YOU don't think adding real penis and balls to an otherwise female looking body is a turn off. In fact it doesn't bother you at all, and might even turn you on a little more than a vagina.
>>663468346 Not really. I said the premise is false, and I also said it doesn't chime with my experience. His/your description is logical in its way, but it's kill because of the false premise it's built on.
The last one wasn't to say "you're wrong" but to express my amusement at being taught that pussy is attractive to heterosexual males when I was eating cunts before you had even reached puberty.
Wanting to fuck a man who has adopted the superficial traits of a woman doesn't make the attraction heterosexual. I mean, can I call myself straight if I want to fuck a man who simply wears high heels and refers to himself as female? Exactly how 'feminine' does this man have to be before my desire can rightly be called hetero? Your false dichotomy comes to play when you assume that vagina is my only concern - imagine that I'm shopping for a car, and I can buy whatever I like, I find a car that fits most of my criteria but the car doesn't have wheels, nor anywhere to put wheels - your argument is 'well you only care about wheels!' No, wheels aren't my primary concern, but if the car doesn't have anywhere to put wheels, you can't rightly call it a car, and my expectation for wheels on a car isn't indicative of some singular focus on wheels.
>>663470282 And I asked several questions in this thread with out ID's so I can not link you to all your posts anymore than you can link me to all of mine.. My grammar and English are pitiful. But I tend to answer and ask questions very directly.
Please feel free to do the same if I addressed a post to you directly. If my question confuses you feel free to ask me to reformat and restate it.
>>663468963 Because a man who looks like a woman is the literally deffinition of an effeminate male.
Effeminate means to have female qualities. So a guy who looks like a girl LITERALLY is an effeminate male. I don't know of I can break it down any further than that. You are choosing not to understand the meanings of these words.
>>663469080 My bad, I meant it isn't part of the visual attraction under normal circumstances, part of the set of feminine markers that draw the interest of heterosexual men.
>you do find a feminine form with a penis either more or equally attractive to one without I wouldn't say that. It's a kink. It's not a level playing field because the fetishism is built on heterosexual orientation. I also don't find the penis "more aesthetically pleasing and/or sexually arousing". What makes the dick arousing in a shemale fetishist context is that it is a visible sign of feminine(!) arousal that is absent with females. It's like a mind trick.
>Liking or not minding dick is the sole thing that makes you a member of the fandom. This is an oversimplifcation. It implies the dick is bigger than the heterosexual attraction. It's not at all. You're confusing orientation and fetishism. It's like you're obsessed with the dick for some reason. For me, the dick on a shemale was first shocking and gross.
>I have no problem with gays or bis but you need to know you are one. Stating otherwise is simply false. That's bunk, but you are free to believe it.
No, I don't have any 'desire for humanity'. I'm a nihilist, and we're simply a bunch of smart animals running around on a giant rock. I do loathe tribalism and physical conflict, and I do get pleasure from giving and receiving kindness, so we're on the same page, practically.
>>663469925 Dude, you are extremely fixated on dicks. And you're telling me I'm gay even though it's you who obsessively thinks about dicks all the time? That's pretty funny to me. You're almost like from some comedy skit where a guy goes to a shrink, and whatever pictures the shrink shows, the guy's response is, "that's a dick, that's pretty gay".
>>663470896 >nihilist Thanks I was trying to understand your perceptions.
That helps a lot.
I am an Odd duck I am Christian and Homosexual. Were I a nihilist? The rest of the world would want to really destroy me. If I had no moral limits I would fuck EVERYTHING.. And Kill every thing that threatened me.
Glad you have found a some what more peaceful version of nihilism..
>>663455648 >Long time ago I was strictly anti-transgender, because I thought, and now I partly think they are still men or women with different mentality.
>After rethinking about it, maybe both sides are right at the same time. I'm judging them as men or women because their body was originally male or female, no matter what surgeries and hormones you take, it's something in the brain what's wrong.
>However, they see it as their brain working ok but having parts of the body wrong because some chemical or hormone imbalance at their gestation and development.
> So we are both right, depending on our point of view.
>However, it seems that now it's possible to fix the body issue at 99% (except reproduction, because they are still their original sex at that), they may even have the right genitals with just that problem (I didn't see them down there so don't ask me, I suppose the surgery is right)
Maybe in the future, when we can change the body or the mind, we will have reasons to choose between one or another, but it will probably be better to leave the mind as it is because complications in the brain could be dangerous.
So yeah, who knows if one day I date a girl who looks like a girl, has girl parts and just was a boy in origin, but not anymore....
>>663471029 That's great, but words have meaning and they're pretty flexible.
A trap might not be what comes to mind when you hear 'effeminate male', but that doesn't change the fact that at their rawest definitions, a trap is pretty much the most effeminate a guy can be and therefore the most basic example of the phrase.
>>663470556 All of that might make sense to you, but it doesn't to me. It's like you start your whole thought process from the dick. Heterosexual males are not attracted to females AFTER they've established there's a vagina to be attracted to. The attraction based on visual cues is there long before that. If you have a passing trap/shemale, the attraction is there. It is undeniable. If you DENY attraction to passing trap that you do not know is a trap, you're in denial. Anyway, you find out there's a dick instead of the expected vagina, and then there is a response to that. The first time a heterosexual male encounters that situation the response is going to be very negative. It doesn't mean there is no change in the response if there is exposure to the same scenario. Either it becomes a fetish or leads to apathetic rejection. If this apathetic rejection is accompanied by insistent resistance, it raises at least my eyebrow because there has to be another reason for violent resistance if the shock response is gone.
>>663470838 I see what you mean, but it makes no sense if you apply it to reality. You see a hot chick, you're very attracted, you find out she has a dick, oops, it's "an effeminate man". Now, does that mean you're gay because you were attracted? So yeah, we'll have to disagree about the definition here because to me it only makes sense to speak of effeminate guys if I can recognize them without doing a full body search.
>Male --- Intersex --- Female These are the two well known classics, plus intersex for anyone who has chromosomal or other physical conditions making them 'not quite man, not quite woman'. Hermaphrodites and such.
Then there's the transgendered options; Pre-Op Male ----------------- Pre-Op Female Post-Op 'Female' ----------- Post-Op 'Male'
Basically, if you have XX you're a lady, XY you're a dude. If you're trans, you're still biologically what your chromosomes say.
But if a man who surgically removed his penis wants to be called 'she', go ahead. Doesn't impact my life.
Anything is is imaginary tumblr bullshit and if anyone uses pronouns other than 'he/she/him/her/etc' they are a pox on this earth and should be cleansed.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.