You must log in or register to comment.
that is the most offhand justification for being gay ever
But still a valid justification for being gay. And I’d hazard it’s a requirement that you find men far more attractive than women. Because if you don’t, then you are merely Bi, (and might have the best of all worlds-- we need more science on that I think).
best of all worlds
no, thats being pansexual and polyamorous
“I’m not gay, its perfectly natural and totally hetro-masculine to get a boner over chiseled, glistening men… Its just science!”
I had a deeply religious room mate freshman year of college. He watched 300 at least 5 times in theaters and IDK how many times on DVD. I can only assume for the glistening chiseled men because its not that good. I always thought he was repressing his desires and this was the only way he could let them out at the time.
Hmmm that sounds pretty gay you guys
No, no. It’s scientific
im homoscientific
Human scientific or same scientific?
im human so both
So, homohomoscientific.
One lives in his basement and never showers and the other has all gay friends whom are nazies thru and thru.
These two deserve each other, fucking losers.
The argument about birds is ignorant because of basic behaviour ecology. Arguing from Zahavis handicap hypothesis males display strength by giving themselves a handicap. Being highly visible, lumbered with pointless feathers.
Females are camouflaged since they often are the ones on the nest.
Yeah, evolutionarily, the more conspicuous male birds drew away predators that would have otherwise attacked the nest. Thus making it more likely their offspring survived.
- “OP is not gay”
- *Brings example from ancient Greece*
Thought this was a shitpost at first
All hot takes are shitposts now
Incel losers clearly have attractiveness that is off the charts and too intimidating for anybody male or female to deal with. It’s so bad they can’t even fuck each other, because of the sheer levels of attractiveness involved.
“naturally attractive” do these idiots seriously think that attractiveness is objective?
Not objective, natural lol!
but if theyre naturally attractive then that means that attractive is the same for everyone
cant be naturally attractive because attractiveness is subjective
Wind can be a nice breeze or a deathtrap. Natural doesn’t mean same. it means natural.
But I wasn’t even talking about the actual meaning. I was making a joke based on his original tweet.
I love how the ‘source’ link is actually named ‘sauce’. Error? Maybe. Fitting? Absolutely!
There was a trend pre covid of using different S words instead of “source”. “Salsa”, “salami”, etc.
This is a decades old trend for 4 chan. I remember people asking for the “sauce” in 2012.
2012 is pre-covid.
For an equally unscientific, vibes based counter-argument (not to be taken seriously): Would it not stand to reason that a highly intelligent social species like humans (that also lacks obvious physical features intended to attract a mate, like the peacock’s feathers) would select a partner that is good at being social (ie. not being an arsehole) and that this is where these incels fail?
Iirc Sapolksy’s lectures point out that according to sociological studies, humans are pretty much smack dab in the middle when it comes to the attraction generated by men that give ”muscular territorial fighters” vs the ones giving “soft caretakers”.
So it depends on the individual if they’re more into peacocks or empathetic men.
Remember how society did that to Michael? This is toxic masculinity doing this to gay men.
Edit: the expectations, the racism, the surgeries.
I don’t get it, I’ve always thought men were the grossest, and I am a man.
Takes all kinds, Nick, it’s okay to find men more attractive; some think 800-pounders are irresistible.
it is like saying males need to display toxic masculinity to make up for lacking any interesting character traits.
Oh shit, that’s what I was missing.
Isn’t the Greek statues being male thing also partly because they didn’t generally hold feminity in high regard compared to masculinity? Or was that the Romans?
Women were seen as inferior men simply needed for the continuation of the species
