Musing and dissertations of s13ep

[ShadySands]

This guy just posts nonsense and then we spend a few pages trying to make sense of it

 

Nothing more to it

[BruceVC]

I dunno. I think the cultural/societal aspect to it is pretty large because it's way more accepted/expected for a woman to "kiss a girl and like it" and thus I've know way more women who've "dabbled" and are open about it than men to whom it's less of a... I don't know what.

 

Sorry, I've had way too much to drink to hold any coherent thoughts

Its often a very different reason why you see women kissing other women, the question  " does this mean that woman is lesbian  " isnt the same as 2 guys kissing which in most cases highlights the fact they are gay

 

[ShadySands]

I'm not saying they are lesbians just that it's more something because reasons

 

I think your response demonstrates what I mean though

Edited April 26, 2017 by ShadySands

[Bartimaeus]

Look, I agree, without hard data (and how can you even measure something like this?), its all just armchair philosophy.

 

But let me ask you this (and I apologize for the crudeness of the question but...) have you ever watched/enjoyed shemale porn?

No...but I'm not exactly the ideal person to be asking this, given that I'd describe my "preferences" as being anti-men while not feeling too strongly one way or another about women. That means women win by default, of course, but, you know, nevertheless, matters of physical attraction are really just not my forte here - however, the subject is still interesting to me, .

Edited April 26, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[BruceVC]

 

The Kinsey Reports (results and methodology) are likely more interesting than the scale itself, I think, since the scale (and all the others like it, as this wiki article itself mentions) are obviously totally arbitrary and meaningless in of themselves without data and good methodology to back it up. Thanks for the link.

 

@Heijoushin: I understood that, and I still disagree. I don't think "most people" would say or even feel that they're even "slightly" or "2%" (or whatever) interested in people outside of their "first" preference, or that they have multiple, equal preferences. It's not clear how the Kinsey Reports feel about this, because while it says roughly 7-10% of people were 50/50 at some points in their life, I don't know how the Kinsey Report actually "judged" people to be 50/50, and I can't seem to find the percentage of people that fell anywhere from 1-5 (the 'tweeners) or again, how it was determined that they were a 'tweener to begin with. I'm not discounting the Kinsey Reports themselves, but it'd be nice to have additional/clearer information about the data and methodology.

 

 

Look, I agree, without hard data (and how can you even measure something like this?), its all just armchair philosophy.

 

But let me ask you this (and I apologize for the crudeness of the question but...) have you ever watched/enjoyed shemale porn?

 

I have watched loads of heteoesxual porn but not shemale porn, I am interested where you going with this point?

[Heijoushin]

 

No...but I'm not exactly the ideal person to be asking this, given that I'd describe my "preferences" as being anti-men while not feeling too strongly one way or another about women. That means women win by default, of course, but, you know, nevertheless, matters of physical attraction are not really just not my forte here - however, the subject is still interesting to me, .

 

 

Ah, I see. I envy you. Physical attraction is more of a burden that anything else.

 

 I have watched loads of heteoesxual porn but not shemale porn, I am interested where you going with this point? 

 

Well, if you find a shemale arousing, then it suggests that you would be willing to sleep with anyone as long as they are attractive enough, regardless of which sexual organ is between their legs 

Guys who identify as "straight" sometimes watch shemale porn, which kind of supports the Kinsey Scale theory, in that they're a little flexible.

[BruceVC]

 

 

No...but I'm not exactly the ideal person to be asking this, given that I'd describe my "preferences" as being anti-men while not feeling too strongly one way or another about women. That means women win by default, of course, but, you know, nevertheless, matters of physical attraction are not really just not my forte here - however, the subject is still interesting to me, .

 

 

Ah, I see. I envy you. Physical attraction is more of a burden that anything else.

 

 I have watched loads of heteoesxual porn but not shemale porn, I am interested where you going with this point? 

 

Well, if you find a shemale arousing, then it suggests that you would be willing to sleep with anyone as long as they are attractive enough, regardless of which sexual organ is between their legs 

Guys who identify as "straight" sometimes watch shemale porn, which kind of supports the Kinsey Scale theory, in that they're a little flexible.

 

My best friend believes that anyone can be attracted and have a physical relationship or "one night stand " with a man or a women 

 

So he believes in the principle that people are naturally bisexual as that is his personal experience and what he has done. He is happily married but stands by this 

 

 

I have never been convinced because surely you have to have some deeper physical attraction to the same sex to do this? So I cant say if my friend is right because I have never experienced this in the same way he has 

[Bartimaeus]

   

Edited April 28, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Bartimaeus]

Or we don't try to make sense of it, and we talk about something else, possibly something just tangentially related!

Edited April 26, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Chilloutman]

 

ok, do we have oby back or what

Baby's first acid trip more likely.

 

Heh, I don't think I would be able to write even that nonsensical stuff under MR. Hoffman influence

[kirottu]

 

I have watched loads of heteoesxual porn but not shemale porn, I am interested where you going with this point?

 

Well, if you find a shemale arousing, then it suggests that you would be willing to sleep with anyone as long as they are attractive enough, regardless of which sexual organ is between their legs 

Guys who identify as "straight" sometimes watch shemale porn, which kind of supports the Kinsey Scale theory, in that they're a little flexible.

 

It has been mathematically proven that watching shemale porn is less gay than watching straight porn. Straight sex always has at least one guy in it. Meaning you're a guy watching a guy having sex which is kinda gay. Shemale sex has at least one shemale in it and only bottom half of shemales is guy parts. Meaning it's half as gay to watch shemale porn as it to watch straight porn.

 

Math never lies.

[Amentep]

Math never lies.

"Figures often beguile me particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.' " - Mark Twain

[Ben No.3]

 

I dunno. I think the cultural/societal aspect to it is pretty large because it's way more accepted/expected for a woman to "kiss a girl and like it" and thus I've know way more women who've "dabbled" and are open about it than men to whom it's less of a... I don't know what.

 

Sorry, I've had way too much to drink to hold any coherent thoughts

Its often a very different reason why you see women kissing other women, the question " does this mean that woman is lesbian " isnt the same as 2 guys kissing which in most cases highlights the fact they are gay

 

This blurs the line

 

What is a "lesbian" then? Someone who'd kiss other women? Someone who'd have sex with other women? Someone who'd have a relationship with other women? And, let's not forget, anyone can talk herself into any of these things, so what if that was the case?

 

TBH, to me it seems like the social factor is BY FAR the most important determinant for our sexual preferences. Take alone the phrase "sexual orientation"... it already makes us think in terms of "which direction to go", as if having sex with males or females were somehow like opposites rather than just two forms of the same thing, which, after all, is much closer.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Valsuelm]

This OP is really meh.

 

However, the thread title does invoke one of the finest five minutes ever in cinema:

 

 

 

[s13ep]

Item

Edited April 30, 2017 by s13ep

[Guard Dog]

What if the enemy is really hot?

Edited April 27, 2017 by Guard Dog

[s13ep]

Item

Edited April 30, 2017 by s13ep

[Raithe]

I'm a little teapot short and stout, here's my handle here's my spout.

 

I'm a little teapot short and stout, here's my handle here's my... oh. ****. I'm a sugar bowl?!

[Amentep]

Do not submit to the enemy,

 

[Gfted1]

This really makes me think...just how short can a thread title be? For some reason it was rattling around in my brain that posts and/or title must be at least three characters. Mind --> blown.

[Blarghagh]

Lewis Carrol, is that you?

[ShadySands]

i. was going to guess Pete Carroll

[s13ep]

Item

Edited April 30, 2017 by s13ep

[Malcador]

[kirottu]

i.

 

Edit:

This really makes me think...just how short can a thread title be? For some reason it was rattling around in my brain that posts and/or title must be at least three characters. Mind --> blown.

I could have sworn that indeed is the case. Then I thought maybe s13ep has reached a higher state of existence and mere man made rules don't apply to him anymore. Maybe that's the reason why his posts are so hard to understand. The rest of us aren't evolved enough to understand his glorious intelligence.

 

But then I tested posting just "i.".

Edited April 28, 2017 by kirottu