They're brainwashed into hating and fearing men, so the only thing left to fuck is women

Only the non attractive ones are true lesbians. I have a lesbian friend and I've been trying to go out with her for 2 years now but she always laughs and says no. I'm not giving up bros.

>>16894695
it's probably a mind virus.

https://rumble.com/v6vtryf-the-mind-virus-how-to-know-if-you-are-a-zombie.html?e9s=src_v1_cbl%2Csrc_v1_ucp_v

>>16894695
there are so many variables. the most common reason can be distilled down to just getting unlucky in their initial prospects for finding a mate. true homosexuality is a genetic defect for obvious reasons and it is incredibly rare

>>16894695
its an attractive thing
if dysgenics do its because theyre rejected from men dating pool in society

Women are not as straight to begin with

>>16894787
Never give up

>>16894695
lesbianism is the response to society's inability to make men capable of satisfying women.
start raising better men who respect women more and know how to do cunnilingus, and lesbianism will be dead within two generations

File: meam.jpg (45.5 KB)

45.5 KB JPG

>>16894695
>be woman
>want only chad
>chad is taken
>fail to reproduce

>be woman
>want only chad
>chad is taken
>happily join chad's harem because all of chad's girls are hot
>reproduce

Yeah, big mystery there, mister.

>>16894842
I wont, she has a girlfriend and I would make comments like "Ok but seriously when are we going out" and her girlfriend would hit me. It's sort of a recurring "joke" but I'm serious.

So there's this phenomena where women find more mature male traits attractive the older they get. See how girls like effeminate boybands k-pop is a good example.

File: enjoy_your_ride....jpg (452.4 KB)

452.4 KB JPG

>>16894695

>they want to team up on me

Not all gals got the old drives ... or do they. Likely takes a biologist to not care too much. :3

>>16894695
Real answer: all humans are bisexual but men have more violent encounters with other men at a young age which conditions them to view intimacy with other boys as being vulnerable which sends a shiver of fear or defensive anger through them whilst girls have no such experiences and can be bisexual without fear of being judged or excluded

>>16895266
this post is bullshit

>>16894858
Start raising better women who regularly sanitize their cooter instead of giving cancer to every man who gives them cunnilingus and men will happily start doing it vastly more often within one generation. Until then, the only men who are doing it are the same men who are likely to eat each other's ass.

>>16894695
Other species of humanoids in our galaxy have the same rates of homosexuality. And going back on past memories, I've been a gay man in a recent world, and people here atm were also there.

>>16895280
Oh ok, so you used to be gay and you are still gay, but you wanted us to know that you used to be gay too.

>>16894695
theyre too disgusting to get a man or want attention. in all cases, the right dick will magically straightify them.
>t. went to art school with a bunch of "lesbians" and they are all married to men or have BFs now

>>16895284
I'm not gay now? And most memories are heterosexual. Probably the overall energy weight in space would be a female/male coupling after taking into account all past lives.
But being gay in other life was just as you would expect here; relationships are hard.

>>16895266
This post rings true

Better question, why is it that even the most basic conversation on this godforsaken board are dominated by crackpots

>>16895266
Baits good. Fuck you faggot.

>>16895318
Almost all the sane and rational people have left.

>>16895347
>>16895318
schizos have overrun the board. they used to be rare.

>>16895352
covid was hell, board was overrun with literal paid vaxshills on the staff nuking everything in sight, sane people retreated, schizos took over

>>16895358
>literal paid vaxshills
>>16895358
>schizos took over
pottery

>>16894695
I don't know

i think women have some bi coded in because it helps them understand what men find hot.

when you look at how it plays out with most women they get turned on by other women, but it's more of an appetizer. most bi women really just sleep with men

>>16895377
>coded
off yourself

>>16894695
Women would rather be with other attractive women than ugly men

File: Magnet Man.png (818.1 KB)

818.1 KB PNG

Some
People
Are
MagNeatO

>>16894695
Rape
Any sexual deviance comes from rape

>>16894695
Terrible plant based foods in their youth which fucked up their hormones.
Especially important is animal fat during puberty, especially for women For men red meat is the most important.

Why is it that so many women stop being lesbians after they leave college?

>>16894695
All women are bisexual. Humanity was naturally a harem ran by the dominant Chad who killed off all the other Chads and only kept the virgins alive to be slaves.

>>16894695
>2026 and the internet is still talking about okcupid data
why don't you go look at the data yourself.

the majority of women who described themselves as bi ignored all messages from women. read that again carefully. they didn't ignore most messages. the majority ignored every single message. it's all performative for attention.

are you going to make a thread tomorrow about other things that have been known for 10 years? like the unequal distribution of likes/messages on dating apps?

The lesbians I know revert back to liking men and will have sex with me. All three of them were abused as children I believe it is to do with a fear of men.

>>16895412
Aren't men the same?
I'd rather fuck a hot ladyboy then a female whale.

File: file.jpg (103.6 KB)

103.6 KB JPG

>>16895266

>>16895377
In my experience bi women seem like straight women who sleep with women sometimes, whereas bi men are usually gay in denial.
>>16895412
I agree with this. Idk if there are studies on the prevalence of bisexuality explicitly but I think in the modern day women get frustrated due to their own high standards then think "I can just fuck hot women instead" and are more receptive to that than settling for average men.

File: 1768054783303046.jpg (44.4 KB)

44.4 KB JPG

>>16894695
One of my friends was a gigantic slut who eventually became a prostitute. I slept with her a few times but we've always just been friends. Anyway, she said most women are able to easily be lesbians and a lot of them are just horrible sluts as well who feel more comfortable giving in to other women than men because they legitimately feel threatened by men passively.

In my own experience I've had two girlfriends who started out as lesbians, started saying they must be bi/it's exclusive to me because I'm a special amazing human being (I'm not), and then just became nymphos. I've noticed a lot of women are nymphos and will fuck anyone or anything, which is why I am adamant in my stance that incels no matter how ugly fugly or retarded are 100% being curbed by being uninteresting and chilling in their chad mancave all day. Unironically I could get any incel on here laid just by them ambiently hanging around with me, put you on a leash and force you to go hiking and fishing.

>>16894695
>Why are some girls lesbians?
Hot chicks.
>Why are some men gay?
Hot dudes.

>>16894695
There are no such things as lesbians. There are only performers who are willing to make exceptions for Chad when they're not performing.

>>16896577
I didn't imply otherwise
>>16896605
Either that or penis envy

>>16895266
utter retardation but anyways...
TL:DR evolution 101: for every higher organism that needs hetero sex to reproduce, not seeking hetero sex is the worst thing you can do after suicide, actually suicide is even ok if you reproduce first. Hetero is in all our genetics. Hetero is survival. Homo is just autism.

File: 1684446261881126.gif (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB GIF

>>16897466
Counter-argument
It is better from an evolutionary standpoint to desire TOO MUCH sex, rather than TOO LITTLE
Too much = desire for hetero sex PLUS maybe some fag sex on the side - some sex with function but also some sex without
Too much = autist who sits in his room and counts train serial numbers all day - no sex of any kind
THEREFORE, the presence of some homosex tendencies in an individual is preferable to a reciprocal level of autism

>>16894700
Brainwashed or looked around here?

>>16897466
"heterosexual" reproduction before the axial age was almost exclusively gangbangs

https://youtu.be/ulAfIrZLvsU?si=1YFcRMkFAjTOBLvB

>>16897797
"women have 1/9 the sex drive of men" is absolute bullshit. Go out and live in the real world for awhile before making such idiotic statements.

>>16894928
Get closer to her girlfriend and woo them both. You have to prove to them that you have a feminine side mentally.

>>16898332
No, her girlfriend is a legit lesbian and I'm not attracted to her, but she is a cool hang, like a guy, she skates and plays drums lol.

>>16894695
because girls are better looking than men. if i was a girl i'd be a lesbian too

>>16894695
Lesbianism is generally performative or rooted in resentment of masculinity.

>>16899037
>resentment of masculinity.
what do they resent exactly? free protection from everything that wants you dead? free domicile construction so you have a warm/dry place to reside? free sex whenever you want it? free living 8 years younger on average?

File: stupid incel.jpg (69.5 KB)

69.5 KB JPG

>>16897797
I fucking hate these incels videos, do you know how horny a fujo woman can be? Do you know how many weird horny women that I met that made FUCKING twitter posts of wanting to be spit roasted and her mom being disappointed? Women are horny as shit, they just don't like turn-offs like incels.

Cause women are hot. Really the question is why aren't more girls lesbians?

>>16899000
nice trips
but if you were a girl you could appreciate the male aesthetic, there are millions of faggots who do.
i think one issue here is that too many males are not living up to the aesthetic.

>>16899964
>Using fujos as an example
>Women are horny dude
Yeah and women fuck dogs your point being

>>16894700
>Brainwashed
How ironic

>>16894695
That's like asking whether cancer is caused by genetics or the environment.

If women fuck dogs, why won't they fuck you? Seems like personal issue to me, just talk to horny women and they will fuck you

fucking forgot the reply
>>16900250
>>16900161

There's straight girls that watch lesbian porn, my ex was doing that, first I didn't believe her but then she showed me her bookmarks.

>>16900377
imagine if a guy watched gay porn and called himself straight

>>16900407
yeah it's called fapping to shemales/futas/traps brah, get with the times kek

>>16895266
You'reself projecting your own sexuality. There were multiple genital arousal test conducted on men and women which showed men had more consistent response with their sexuality only womens result where inconsistent.

>>16895266
>Real answer: all humans are bisexual
source: pedophile psychologist

File: 09d08b403d7e971353cae5e85fae2c01.jpg (19.9 KB)

19.9 KB JPG

You know of all the homosexual behavior observed in animals it seems far rarer or almost nonexistent among females compared to males.

>>16900377
>>16900639
She isn't straight neither are those guys. They are just closet bisexuals with different center of attraction.

>>16900719
>Animals
>Homosexual
It is incorrect to assign to animals an attraction based category unique to humans. There are no homosexual animals. There are no heterosexual animals. They simply fuck anything and everything without regard.

To clarify further. When we say homosexual we mean humans who are romantically attracted to their own sex. Indeed we do not call men who fuck men and women homosexual; we call them bisexual. Meanwhile if an animal fucks males and females we call it homosexual to mean males fuck the same sex at nonzero frequencies

The suicide alphabet is full of disingenuous arguments like that.

>>16900865
Oh I wasn’t implying they are. what I was saying is that compared to such observed behavior in male animals it is far less frequent in female animals.

>>16900865
>There are no homosexual animals.
Gay rams, bloody dopey bastards. Spend their time chasing the other rams instead of painting tails green

>>16900865
Point is same-sex behaviour occurs in every animal species. We just have words for different shit to do with our complex social systems that those animals lack. These categories are socially constructed but are an attempt to describe real, and natural, behaviour.

>>16897644
Have you looked for what you want?

>>16894695
rape
>>16897123
>>16896577
>>16900639
faggots

>>16901079
This is because males fuck the females. The arbiter of fucking will fuck other things. A receiver of fucking will not go out to fuck others.
>>16901163
Let me guess. When held in captivity with no females around unless watched in an enclosed area.
>>16901860
>every animal species
Absolutely incorrect and a disingenuous lie. The logic you and your ilk use is something like
>Mindless animals do it, so it's okay that I do it!
Yeah, and these mindless animals will also rape other animals, literally eat their offspring when starving and eat their own shit. I suppose since it's behavior observed in animals, it's perfectly acceptable for humans to do this right?

> It is nature
How dare you! It was a choice.

> It is nurture
How dare you! I had no choice.

File: ofay demons.jpg (835 KB)

835 KB JPG

>>16894695
Child Abuse, always.

>>16894695
Not sure why pure lesbianism would be a thing, but bisexual flexibility in women has been a thing since at least the dark ages if not way earlier. I suspect if it's anything genetic, that it started around there.

>>16902433
>Let me guess. When held in captivity with no females around unless watched in an enclosed area.
No, use your brain, what do you think raddle is used for? they still hit some but you put down a couple thousand on a good ram and the bastard turns out useless

>>16895352
Schizo science is the best science. It takes schizo thinking to have a breakthrough.

>>16897803
>>16899964
It's true though, women have 1/20 the testosterone levels of a man on average, the hormone responsible for sex drive

>>16894695
There are no true lesbians and there are no women that are 100% heterosexual. They are all bisexual to varying degrees.

>>16902927
true

>>16894695
It's not real sex.

>>16894819
Nah its parasites. hence the huge anti ivermectin wave. it cures gay.

>>16894695
>Patrick Bateman voice
Lesbian relationships seem to be socially synonymous with micro-harems.
I am fairly sure that women engage in these to gather experience, as they carry lower biological risk, and to increase their perceived sexual value to potential partners by "offering" their entire group, or micro-harem, to them.
I am surprised that there aren't more polyamorous lesbian relationships, but from what I have gathered, people just don't call them that.
Language, as stringent as its definitions may be, is contextual after all. And the average person does not choose their words well.
This post has meant nothing. Ask better questions next time.

Why is so hard to start in the way of math?

File: SecretYuriLifeOfGirls.png (189.2 KB)

189.2 KB PNG

>>16894695

When guys do something jokingly gay they call jokingly each other fags. When girls jokingly do something gay they jokingly call each other sluts. Guys can do one thing gay and that makes them gay. Girls have to do everything gay in order to be a lesbian. Girls can make out with each other and it don't mean a damn thing but fun. Girls have way more of a license, and I think more of a desire to act gay than men. Lesbian sex is always in the top five of womens' preferred porn.

Girls are just gayer. It's something they like.

>>16895266
I'll give you a minute to gather the contents of your purse before you fuck off.

>>16902484
Who are you quoting

>>16902433
>Appeal to nature and an appeal to rise above our nature within the same post

>>16905464

https://aeon.co/essays/why-should-gay-rights-depend-on-being-born-this-way

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/gay-brothers/480117/

>>16905513
So, different people

>>16905576

Different people who can influence LGBTQQIAP community.

>>16905579
Yes, just like you're also influenced by different people. Are you crazy and inconsistent? Wait, poor example maybe.

Upon consideration, the positions put forth by these articles aren't even incompatible, nor did you represent them accurately.
>Desire might be biologically driven, but it moves on tracks laid forth by human culture.
>This does not mean that biology does not matter. Genetics is central to explaining our behaviour, and those who deny the impact of genetics do so at their peril.
>The position I offer, then, is a subtle one. ‘Born that way’ is a simple mantra, one that cuts through the concepts and challenges I have outlined. But it is also dangerous. For embracing the fiction of biological determinism risks consistently misunderstanding the most important part of our lives – our intimate relationships. We invented romantic love. And homosexuality. And just about every other kind of relationship. That doesn’t make any of these things less important or less real. But our inventions are not part of a biological nature: they are part of a conversation between a biological and social order of life.
>everyone will have to acknowledge that their sexuality is no different than the homosexual’s – driven by desire, and moulded by society.
And, the other one:
>Homosexuality might be partly driven by a mother’s immune response to her male fetus—which increases with each son she has.
>Part of the explanation is genetic, but because most identical twins of gay people are straight, heredity doesn’t explain everything.
>The “why” question is important because “there is a strong correlation between beliefs about the origins of sexual orientation and tolerance of non-heterosexuality,”

Both articles agree with and complement one another

>>16894695
Mostly because being gay has a low opportunity cost. For males, fucking everything that vaguely resembles a human female is a pretty solid reproductive strategy - cumming is pretty cheap, both resource and time wise, so you just fuck everything around and eventually it will be a human female. Sure, you will fuck some men along the way, maybe some animals and inanimate objects, but who cares? If you keep fucking it will be a woman eventually. One day you fuck a horse, another day you fuck Sarah Jessica Parker.

For women on the other hand it's harder to find as clear cut of a reason but there's also basically zero opportunity cost to being gay. Women only have to be selective when it comes to human males because getting fucked by a genetic dead end means you are now stuck carrying an extremaly resource intensive half-genetic dead end for 9 months and you could even die giving birth to it. Fucking men is serious business for women, they have a heavy incentive to only fuck the best males, unlike men who can fuck anything and move on. But women fucking women? It's not even real fucking, it's literally just play.

>>16905581

So different people, yet somehow you managed to miss that both arguments are describing the same feedback loop: biology sets the parameters, culture tunes the frequencies. Acting like ‘nature versus nurture’ are opposing teams is like arguing whether it’s the CPU or the code that runs the program. Both exist in co-dependence; and you wouldn’t be booting this thread without either.

>>16905591
Did you lose track of the conversation?
You implied that there was an inconsistency or contradiction here >>16902484
And I explicitly said >>16905581
>Both articles agree with and complement one another

File: 1608572111957.gif (88.5 KB)

88.5 KB GIF

There are two types of lesbians
>sexual abuse victim that is afraid of men
>mental abuse victim that is afraid of men
Both can be cured with some good dick. They're not homosexual. They're seeking out intimacy and were either taught to avoid men through social pressure, or avoid men due to a bad experience.

>>16905596
No, I didn’t “lose track,” you lost your own premise. The joke in >>16902484 was about how activists swap between “born this way” and “it’s a choice” depending on which story is politically useful, not about whether those two articles contradict each other. Both links explicitly say biology gives you a predisposition while environment and culture shape how it’s expressed, which is exactly the interaction you quoted yourself: desire on biological rails, tracks laid by society.

You “corrected” me by restating the same nature–nurture feedback loop I was pointing at and then pretended that somehow refuted the point. So yes, both articles complement one another; that’s why your original “gotcha” about inconsistency was aimed at the rhetoric, not the science.

>>16905599
>The joke in >>16902484 was about how activists swap between “born this way” and “it’s a choice” depending on which story is politically useful
I asked you "who are you quoting" and you presented these two articles. If you think both of those articles are accurately summarised by what you said, and if both of those articles are, as we've established, in agreement with each other and with the facts, then there's nothing to "swap" between. If the point was not that there was an implied contradiction, then what was it?

The first article is, incidentally, quite explicitly critical of opting for a politically useful but scientifically untenable argument.

>>16905605
You mixed up what I was mocking. The “how dare you, it was a choice / I had no choice” bit is about the rhetorical whiplash in activist messaging, not about those two specific papers disagreeing with each other. The Aeon piece literally argues that “born this way” was a strategically useful oversimplification of a much more complex interaction between biology and context, and criticises exactly that kind of politically convenient determinism. The empirical work on etiology and attitudes shows why that oversimplification had traction in the first place: people who think orientation is innate tend to be more tolerant, while “it’s a choice” maps to moral condemnation.
So there is something to “swap” between: two different stories (“immutable trait” vs “personal choice”) that get deployed depending on which audience you’re trying to move, even though the underlying science is an entangled nature–nurture story. Pointing out that the real picture is “both at once” doesn’t contradict the joke; it just underlines why the meme works.

>>16905610
>The “how dare you, it was a choice / I had no choice” bit is about the rhetorical whiplash in activist messaging
Right, so when I asked "who are you quoting", that was me asking you for an example of that. And you provided me with two articles, one of which roughly corresponds to your first oversimplification in very broad strokes (it was a choice!) and the second of which roughly corresponds to your second oversimplification (I had no choice!).

But now that actually wasn't the point at all and it's really all about the more nuanced message conveyed by both of these articles, which you actually agree with. You can see how that could've been confusing, right? What you gave me was the opposite of an example of rhetorical whiplash but rather a nuanced consideration of the facts and a case for abandoning rigid dichotomies.

>Pointing out that the real picture is “both at once” doesn’t contradict the joke; it just underlines why the meme works.
I'm still not really seeing it desu

>>16905618
You’re still conflating “what the articles say” with “how the talking points get laundered into slogans.” The Aeon piece spells out the exact trap: activists leaned on a biologically deterministic “born this way” line because it worked politically, even though the underlying reality is a messy interaction between predisposition and environment. The attitude research you keep circling around shows why that move was attractive: people who think orientation is inborn tend to be more accepting, while framing it as a pure choice tracks with moral blame.
That gap between a nuanced model (“both at once”) and the binary slogans (“pure nature” vs “pure choice”) is the rhetorical whiplash the joke is pointing at. The fact that you had to walk through two long-form essays to recover the nuance just proves the meme’s point: the public-facing narrative keeps snapping back to oversimplified extremes, even when the underlying science and scholarship don’t.

>>16905623
But, Anon, when I asked you for evidence that activists go back and forth between these "binary slogans", you gave me these articles (which, again, correspond roughly to those binary slogans). These articles originating from the very community you're trying to caricature here, but which show that there is actually no going back and forth. The "pure nature" narrative was attractive and became the mainstream, but now there is a growing understanding that this image needs to be nuanced. That's it. That's not going back and forth, that's a slow evolution.
And yes, the "pure choice" narrative also exists separately, and tracks with moral blame as you say - but this was explicitly the stance of their *opposition*, so of course it contradicts the mainstream LGBTQ activist position. There was no swapping, no switching stories depending on which audience they were trying to move. There was a consistent position, and now it is people from within the community pushing for a more nuanced (but still internally consistent) understanding.

Were I less charitably inclined I might assume that you actually did intend these articles to be your evidence of contradictory binary rhetorical positions within the community, and you're backpedalling after it was pointed out that they're not.

>>16905639
You’re still treating “activists” like a perfectly consistent hive mind drafting white papers, instead of a bunch of NGOs, lobbyists, HR departments, journalists, and randos all grabbing whatever frame plays best for their audience at the time. The Aeon piece exists precisely because the simple “born this way” line became dominant in mainstream advocacy as a strategic, morally-legible story, even though the underlying scholarship was already more nuanced. The attitude data shows why that happened: essentialist “it’s innate” framing reliably bumps tolerance, whereas “it’s a choice” framing sits on the side of condemnation and reparative fantasies.
That’s the swap the joke is about: public rhetoric oscillating between “unchosen essence” when you want protection and “my authentic choice” when you want celebration, even while the better thinkers inside the same broad camp keep saying “both at once, stop flattening it.” Calling that messy, audience-contingent signalling a “slow, internally consistent evolution” is a generous post hoc rationalisation, but it doesn’t match how these narratives actually get packaged and sold in mass politics.

>>16905646
Anon, you're still treating this binary whiplash rhetoric as a given, without evidence. Yes, there is contradictory rhetoric; but they come from opposing sides of the debate. Nobody is swapping. "Not a choice" is still mainstream and Pride has been around for 55 years so clearly the "my authentic choice" framing isn't necessary to celebrate anything and I haven't ever encountered it in that context. As far as I can tell, your joke relies on a mistaken assumption.
>a generous post hoc rationalisation
No, it's what's actually described in those articles you posted for your evidence. Audience-contingent signalling isn't. Your narrative is what doesn't match the actual messaging, here.

Faggot mods will delete entire threads where real people discuss things they don't like, then let ludicrously obvious GPTs post leftist walls of text over and over with impunity.

>>16894861
>>be woman
>>want only chad
>>chad is taken
>>fail to reproduce

>>be woman
>>want only chad
>>chad is taken
>>happily join chad's harem because all of chad's girls are hot
>>reproduce
/thread
100% innate behavior

>>16905651
You're not a real person, you're a thing masquerading as human

>>16905657
>you're a thing masquerading as human
That's the same thing I tend to think about normies. Maybe I really do have some atavistic traits which make me not a true part of your posthuman cattle kind. I don't know which one of us is "human" but we're definitely not the same kind of animal.

>>16905646
>>16905651
Don't tell me that was you, I was still treating you as if you were arguing in some semblance of good faith and had simply made a genuine mistake.
Speaking of rhetorical whiplash, at that.

>>16905662
>Don't tell me that was you
Now, I'm actually pretty sure that's Grok.

>>16905663
So it's obvious GPT walls of text regardless of political affiliation huh

>>16905665
That wall of text is muh nuanced leftism-lite.

>>16905670
Good thing you're so free of nuance like an atavistic Übermensch

>>16905671
I'm nuanced about nuance. Helps me avoid redundant pseudointellectual games unless it's specifically what I'm going for.

>>16905672
I think it's better to avoid redundant pseudointellectual games entirely, but maybe that's just a lack of nuanced nuance on my part

>>16905677
>maybe that's just a lack of nuanced nuance on my part
It really is, and in any case, you couldn't tell the difference. I mean look at what you've been arguing about and "who" you've been arguing it with. kek

>>16905681
Yes, you're clearly wasting my time

>>16905686
Right. Keep in mind you're the one who started addressing me because you felt "ludicrously obvious GPTs" and "leftist walls of text" somehow applies to you specifically.

>>16905688
Pretending to be a mindreader now? Don't quit your day job yet.

>>16905696
>Pretending to be a mindreader
No, it's literally what happened. I addressed no one in particular and made no reference to any specific post, but you reacted with offense.

I'm going to address no one in particular and make no reference to any specific post but I will say that mentally ill subhumans playing pseudo-intellectual games shouldn't expect further responses from me.

Uh oh. Somewhere out there someone is losing his mind with impotent rage. Not talking about anyone specific, here, but it's a big world out there. :^)

>>16894695
My girlfriend says she thinks tits are nice, and would suck them. She isn't a dyke, but would suck tits, if that makes any sense.

>>16905723
She wants to suck tits because women are whores and women are whores because men like them that way.

>>16905707
And that's what you do with attention seeking liars

>>16905730
Thank you for the gold, kind stranger.

>>16897466
if hetero is survival, why are we "HOMO sapiens"?

>>16894695
>ctrl-f
No one here mentioned the Occam's razor: it feels good?

>>16896605
>mfw bisexuality is just women monkey branching because modern gynocentric society put women above men.

>>16906769
Then why aren't all women lesbians?
It's still the same question really