So I've just read several theories about why straight m

>>7775316
Bump for lulz.
also straight men aren't attracted to trannies. sorry.

File: 1438240961429.jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

>>7775316
>why straight men are attracted to trannies
oh boy, what would freud say about you
thanks for the giggul m8

>>7775316
>I've just read several theories
No.
Lrn2theory

>>7775316

I have an Alan Grant bewildered face right now.

Why are men into shemale porn?

Why is anti-Jewish sentiment so prevalent throughout most of the world? Does this mean that there's a reason to hate Jews, and thus killing them is okay?

What's wrong with killing Jews?

It's not a bad talk, with the exception of the shemale porn.

If something with a penis sexually arouses you, you're not a heterosexual. This is where his talk fails. If something has a penis, it does not have a vagina. It doesn't matter if it has tits or ass. It has a dick. There is nothing heterosexual about being attracted to non-vagina.

Cleavage is just simulated buttocks. Buttocks are though what you have access to the vagina. Ultimately, it's about the vagina, and and other sexual queues are merely the means to the end. It's about the climax. And if the climax involves a penis, and not a vagina, you're not heterosexual.

This shit isn't complicated.

>>7775501
Wrong.

Sexuality is not based on attraction to genitalia, it is based on attraction to gender. A group of 10 men all might like different things about women. One man might be obsessed with tits, another man might find vaginas disgusting but is attracted to the female form, etc. The only unifying factor is that they are attracted to women and not men.

Sexuality is a jewish study to juxtapose sexual deviants into a discussion of perceived normality. Most people who engage in the topic of sexuality (possibly including myself) are given to a maladaptive conditioning by media which expresses the brain's affinity to induct through mechanism of neurobiology a form of endorphin-based acquired learning. Anything discussed beyond the passion that is sex or masturbation, is merely faggots trying to reason their faggot behavior.

>>7775316
>why straight men are attracted to trannies

It's simple: they aren't.

File: 1452286007833.jpg (137KB, 960x1279px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 960x1279px

>>7775316
The boobies make it confusing

There, simplified it for you didnt even have to read yyour damned article

>>7775316
>poutine is the shemale porn of international cuisine

Lost it.

>>7775316
>All of the food that we eat can be reduced to five taste cues.

Wrong. Dr.Pepper has 23 flavours.

>Reduction to finite sexual cues

Wrong again. There are scat fetishists

>Men like to look at porn
>Male sexual cues are primarily visual

What about blind men? Are they incapable of sexual arousal?

>Which body parts are universal in terms of male sexual interest.

None, see above or change the definition of 'universal'.

Then he goes on to simply assert a biological predisposition for men to focus on certain body parts. That's so stupid. How would you control for such a study?

The nurture nature debate is over, guys, you can go home. These guys solved it with the obvious answer 'because we said so.'

All they're doing, as far as I can tell (and I only watched ten minutes in to be honest) is showing that men search for certain things. They then erroneously assume it's all for the purposes of sexual arousal, and then further assume a predisposition.

For me, I found that self-awareness allowed me to see my own sexual motivations. The more I exposed myself to certain stimuli while promoting a state of arousal, the more those stimuli aroused me in the future. Sure, there's obviously some predisposition, I still remember first being exposed to porn, a woman covered in obviously fake semen (or perhaps it was meant to obviously be whipped cream). Exposure to this porn, even though I was pre-pubescent, did make me feel tingly in my boy parts. I couldn't masturbate, but it was definitely triggering some primal desire.

However, I would not say that because I have since developed a taste for bukkake porn that I am "pre-disposed" to being aroused by women covered in semen. It seems much more likely to me that being attracted to women is instinct, where as being attracted to bukkake is association.

Just my opinion and experiences, though. I'm not a massive enough asshole to get on stage and say 'I'm right cuz neuroscience'.

>>7775787
>For me, I found that self-awareness allowed me to see my own sexual motivations. The more I exposed myself to certain stimuli while promoting a state of arousal, the more those stimuli aroused me in the future.
Explain? How did you promote a state of arousal?

I've never really found porn really arousing, so if you've got any idea how to make it more arousing, I'd love to hear your methods.

>>7775831
>>7775831
I don't know about you, but my first orgasm involved no pornography, I wasn't even thinking about sex.

Sure, seeing pictures of a beautiful naked woman aroused something in me, and the feeling did radiate from my genitals, but I wasn't physically aroused, I was far too young to get an erection I believe.

My earliest memory of an orgasm (reinforced by journal entries) was rubbing my genitals against my bed one day when I was twelve, I wasn't thinking of sex, I just knew it felt good. Then I had an orgasm and as I did I had this intense visualisation of multicoloured (red green and blue) fluids being pushed by pistons through transparent tubes. The orgasm itself wasn't particularly pleasurable, I was scared, like I broke something.

This makes too much sense to me, it's a variation on the mere-exposure effect as far as I'm concerned (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere-exposure_effect). Biologically speaking different states of arousal have a lot in common, there have been cases of priapisms developing in the face of something which is life threatening. If you're not used to such intense arousal, yeah, it's going to be overwhelming.

Some people can become fear junkies, but society teaches us to become junkies of other sorts.

>>>/lgbt/
>>>/mlp/
>>>/reddit/
>>>/b/
>>>/soc/

non-sci garbage is not allowed here.

>>7775842
I have no idea what you're talking about.

heres a thouhgt

what if

what if straight men are attracted to trannies because 95% of their body resembles a woman?

idk just a thought

>>7776064
> straight men are attracted to trannies
> mens body looks like womens body
0/10

>>7776087
4/20

I am straight and not attracted to abominations known as "trannies and such"

Therefore your assertion is false. Stop assuming things about people, it makes you offensive OP.

>>7777268
check your cis privilege normie

>>7777275
Cisgender doesn't exist.

>>7777275
>>7777286
>tfw straight white cisgender blond blue eyed 6'2" fit male
>tfw have straight white cisgender blond blue eyed 5'4" thin girlfriend
>tfw both math electrical engineering double majors

All I do is roll in privilege and solve problems. Fuck everyone with fewer opportunities than me. I couldn't give a shit.

>>7777989
You're not responsible for other peoples problems anyway. Especially if ur 6'2 and look godlike :3

>>7778009
>Especially if ur
The two things have no real relation.

>>7778015
...said the manlet

>>7778018
So you think you're less involved with other people due to your appearance?

>>7775519

The female form includes the vagina. There is no female form without a vagina.

You seem bad at this.

>>7775842
sorta like a pavlovian response with arousal?

>>7778047
sorry I meant "effeminate form"