>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
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?
>>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.
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.
>>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
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
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 content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.