>13th reaction pic is yfw you realize literally everyone

>being this retarded

File: cross4.jpg (321KB, 2400x1642px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 2400x1642px

>>724887310

>>724887423


grand master kek


>>724887442
>being this new

File: 1458563055932.jpg (46KB, 591x960px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 591x960px

>>724887310

File: 4L_1rKlQfoc.jpg (16KB, 219x234px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 219x234px

>>724887310

>>724888342


was this really your 13th pic???

File: The-Kinsey-Scale.png (426KB, 943x613px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 943x613px

Almost everyone is bisexual, probably 99.99%.


Why? Almost nobody is COMPLETELY 100% gay or straight, therefore NEARLY everyone is somewhere in the middle or on the near ends of the spectrum.

It doesn't seem crazy when you look at it like this.

>>724888619
>/thread

File: IMG_2580.jpg (25KB, 445x331px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 445x331px

>>724887310
Bullshit. Just because you like cock and cant stand it, doesn't mean the rest of us do. Stop projecting, faggot.

>>724888741
read
>>724888619


then feel dumb, because you are.

File: 1406347734634.png (122KB, 828x712px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 828x712px

>>724887310

File: IMG_2340.jpg (14KB, 276x183px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 276x183px

>>724888771
Did YOU even look at it?Im a 0 then. Not homo, not bisexual, all straight.

>>724888903


Do you fap? That requires you to grapple a man's penis until it cums on your belly. Not totally straight.

File: IMG_2285.jpg (18KB, 394x394px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 394x394px

>>724888950
Not when it's my own appendage, moron. You shit your own shit? Do you wipe your own asshole? Oh youre a scat fetishist. Thats how you faggots sound. Just because you want everyone to be a faggot like you doesnt it make it true, queer.

File: 1484683500685s.jpg (2KB, 125x88px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x88px

>>724887423

File: IMG_2552.jpg (32KB, 379x379px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 379x379px

>>724887310
Death to dykes and fags.

>>724889102
>Not when it's my own appendage.


Why haven't you questioned this? It's not a valid defense. A dick is a dick.

I'm just pointing out the shades of gray where you least expect them to appear. But they exist.

Ignore the Kinsey 0-6, just picture sexuality as an infinite continuum between two extremes that essentially never completely find reality.

File: IMG_2442.gif (1MB, 326x268px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 326x268px

>>724889247
Listen, princess, your point is inane. Pulling on your own dick is for pleasuring yourself, not others. If I could achieve the same result pulling on my ear, id do that instead. Your kind has a fixation with others' cocks, us straight guys dont.

>>724889247
>ignore 0-6
>pointed at it and got refited

Make up your mind, faygot.

File: download (1).jpg (13KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x168px

Lmao this was legit.

File: Wat8.jpg (38KB, 604x404px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 604x404px

>>724889400
>jacking off a penis to completion and getting cum on your hands and torso with the orgasm isn't gay


Sure. Sure.

>>724889247
Faaaaaag got btfo'd

File: IMG_2498.png (127KB, 500x382px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 500x382px

>>724889520
But it isnt.

>>724889477


I mean the 0-6 Kinsey scale is valid but also simplistic. It has historical value for psychology. Sexuality is a spectrum, which can be infinitely divided.

>>724889567
Yes, it obviously is. Stop taking your blue pills.

>>724887310
>literally everyone is bisexual
lol. No.

File: IMG_2298.gif (774KB, 384x269px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 384x269px

>>724889584
>HUUURRRRR IM GAY THEREFORE EVERYONE IS GAAAAY

Fuck off. I mean it.

>>724889639
Literally yes.

>>724889618
Nope.

>>724889670
Nah

>>724889652
>>724889672


>not actually reading the posts

plebs

>>724889721
>>724889672
>>724889652
>>724889639
>>724889567
>>724889541
samefag

>>724888619
Make a statement that 99.99% of people are bisexual (probably).

Explain the reasoning by stating that almost nobody is 100% gay / straight, therefore nearly everyone is some sort of bisexual.

Do you genuinely not see the circular logic there? Almost everyone is bi because almost everyone is bi.

>>724889776
Nope, you triggered faggot.

File: IMG_2482.jpg (51KB, 350x516px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 350x516px

>>724889725
>IM A FAGGOT THEREFORE EVERYONE IS A FAGGOT BECAUSE ME ME ME

>>724887442
When you realize literally everyone is retarded.

>>724887310
>no face
not everyone is bisexual. it is a continuum. some people are 100% homosexual and others are 100% heterosexual. many people are somewhere on a line between the two.

>>724889815
literally just you, pretty sure you're insecure about your sexuality otherwise you wouldn't be putting in this much effort to shitpost.

>>724887310
I can't get off to straight porn, but I'm attracted to women

>>724890034
>>724890034
>>724890034


you're basically conceding to OP's point.

almost nobody is not-bisexual, which is OP's point


>>724890128
you're bi

>>724890226
You don't think I just built up a porn tolerance

>>724890412
>>724890412


You're attracted to women. This isn't a discussion.

>>724889584
>Sexuality is a spectrum, which can be infinitely divided.
True! But lets look at distribution of that scale when applied to individuals.

An infinite series can contain an infinte number of points, single places where people fit on that scale, but this does not mean that the distribution of points is homogeneous OR that there are enough people to fill the scale. There are a finite number of people and even if there were infinite people there are COUNTABLY infinite people because a person is a single entity (an integer). The scale of gayness is UNCOUNTABLY infinite (a decimal). This means that you could have infinite people, drop them on the scale of gayness and still have INFINITE NUMBERS OF POINTS THAT HAVE NO ONE FILLING THEM ON THE SCALE because the scale is uncountable. Look up the difference if you don't follow, there's not enough room here to explain fully.

Further: distribution tends towards the mean. We know from real life (not your gay little "woah, infinity dude" stoner thought experiment) that there are more straight people than gay people. Estimates range from one in 7 people are gay to one in 20 are gay. When you apply even the gayest distribution to your little infinite series you see a significantly larger population of people towards the straight end and not the gay end just like real life... because, once again, the infinite series of people and the infinite series of potential gayness levels are different. Just because the scale is infinite doesn't mean you can fill it, even hypothetically, and even if you could by applying actual distribution we still see that there are more straight people than gay.

So you're just wrong. There are more people at 100% straight than there are at 100% gay and the distribution shows that while there are indeed shades of gayness straight is far more likely and is the largest single subset.

Therefore: not everyone is bisexual, even with infinite people on an infinite scale of gayness.

Fuck off.

>>724890588
lol, threadkiller

>>724890588
Where did you find info about the spread of he Kinsley scale?

>>724890588
/~thread();

>>724891269
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#The_Kinsey_Reports

There for starters but there are other sources, I've closed all my tabs and I'm not bothered to open them again. Distribution of men who have had sexual contact with another is about 37%, which includes all 100% gay people too of course. Apply this to the infinite series concept and the distribution remains the same because people are a countably infinite series whereas the scale is not.

File: 1487020218564.jpg (59KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 655x527px

>>724890588

Nice dubs. You're kinda wrong though, I didn't really read the rest of this argument but let's take an evolutionary view for a second here. Why would sexuality be any more complex than it needs to be to respond to the evolutionary pressures that caused it to develop in whatever way it has? On the one hand I'm absolutely sure, as are you, that sexuality has an "intended" polarity but we're examining something made by a "blind watchmaker", a non-conscious algorithm making approximate models which are effective "non-designs". There's absolutely a polarity but there's also a rather low resolution. I mean, think about all this trap porn we're flooded with here in /b/, traps are effectively a collection of memes concerned with co-opting femininity to induce other males to "mate" with them. It begs the question, it heavily implies that straight, normal men to be honest, are more attracted to femininity than women themselves.

Arguing gay and straight is kind of pointless, the point of "everyone is bisexual" is really "sexuality is an abstraction you can only communicate at length about with memes". Humans are perverts. That's really all there is to it.

Is there a way to tell if a dude is slightly gay? I'm into a guy at my work, but if he's into other guys then he hides it well, other than being maybe slightly metero... But I can't tell if in projecting, or if the reason no one notices is because I'm into men, or what? How do I know?

File: 1440954945632.jpg (26KB, 353x334px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 353x334px

>>724887310

File: Screenshot_2017-02-15-13-13-24.png (245KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 540x960px

>my 13th pic
???

>>724891816
> kinda wrong
> didn't read
I'll stop reading your "counterpoint" then, I'll assume it's an abstraction of concept rather than an extrapolation of fact. I did glance over it and some some "fapping to traps isn't gay" style bullshit so yeah... you're in good company on 4Chan but you're below my pay grade.

>>724890588


If you masturbate, you can't be 100% straight.

File: tumblr_mb006vrfdz1rhgx1do1_1280.jpg (61KB, 604x480px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 604x480px

>>724892247
>/thread

>>724891870


If he's your friend, you can have coffee with him alone and just bring it up and ask politely.

>>724892319
this


don't be too shy

>>724892319
>>724893117
Not that same anon but,
>hey work buddy, you into butt licking? My friends on the Peruvian dance board told me not to be so shy anymore about the double temple trample ;)

Nice.

File: 5950166134028b800caca0a60a6301c0de75f73fe49313e57998401700cf156e.jpg (105KB, 517x640px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 517x640px

>>724892086

Not really, it's mostly the suggestion that an evolutionary view of sexuality suggests that ockham's razor applies to it's development and mechanisms. Why would it be any more complex than it needs to be to solve the problem it does? It's also only as focused as it is because of it's affect on reproduction, people who reproduced had their genes replicated and those who didn't, didn't. Every living person is the descendant of a "successful mater", but only so successful, even one child "counts" in the total. Humans don't produce a lot of children in total over their lifetimes so even having a couple kids is important and it becomes even more important as humans increasingly plan children rather than have them accidentally.

So all a mostly gay guy has to do is get drunk a few times and slam a few cunts, bam, he's evolutionarily relevant. The big reveal is sexuality just isn't terribly specific and we're knee-deep in "culture" on that issue. Which is fine, culture is great, western culture is valuable and powerful. Conservatives don't have to fight with scientists when most scientists are conservative anyway, we just don't go on TV and whine for money like liberals do.

There's no god and you're the evolutionary product of a blind, non-conscious, only-as-good-as-it-needs-to-be process and fundamentalism is stupid. Does this mean you have to be an SJW-loving America-hating ultra faggot? No. Fuck no. Accept science and the profit and understanding it will bring. Don't bother with faggots, fight communists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuVEr_BY0vA

>>724893117
>>724892319
I'LL TRY I GUESS..... Though it might end up a disaster. He's a bit higher pay grade than me, maybe he'll think it's bad news even if he is into it. Buh he cute bruh

>>724888903
I'm all straight too, and assumed all "straight" people felt like me. Imagine my surprise.

>>724894015
Yeah, it's pretty weird how we work. I'm always trying to put myself in the position of straight and gay people, but I can't imagine only being attracted to one sex. Doesn't make sense to me? I know it happens, but like. How. You're cutting yourself 50% short lol