"Heterosexual" women

[Anonymous No.15525328]

Do they even exist? Multiple studies have shown that women can get aroused by a wide range of stimuli. In fact, "heterosexual" women are more aroused to erotic media of women than of men. Bisexuals are even a tiny bit more turned on by women, and lesbians a lot more, but still, all women show low categorical (female/male) preference when it comes to erotic stimuli.

On top of that, the most popular porn category for women is lesbian (self-proclaimed straight women watch it). The "straight" porn made for women also focus on the woman and not the man (he's basically a placeholder). You could argue that they're just "projecting" themselves on the girl and feeling her pleasure, but could we even call it heterosexual attraction at this point, when they just focus on the girl?

In addition to this, women do not consider the male body on its own arousing, and talk about how they need "context, cues, muh personality, etc" to feel aroused. In contrast, bi and lesbians (and I guess many of the "hetero") actually get visully aroused for women and don't need context.

Social, historical trends and evolutive history also point towards female bisexuality. More and more women are coming out as bi or not fully straight, and scientific data backs this tendency.

So, is it all fake? Are most, if not all, "straight" women closeted bis who repress their sexuality? Do women who only are attracted to men even exist? Are we men that undesirable?

The cherry on top is that most women consider the vast majority of men unappealing, while they consider most women to be attractive.

[Anonymous No.15525350]

I think that "straight" simply means something different when applied to women than when it's applied to men.
A straight man only gets aroused by women, period.
A straight woman may get aroused by other women, but wouldn't actually have sex with one.

[Anonymous No.15525357]

>>15525328
My gf is very straight. Thinks pussy is gross. She's also painfully normie, but I want to reproduce so it's fine.

[Anonymous No.15525361]

>>15525350
can a lesbian be aroused by men?

[Anonymous No.15525362]

>>15525361
Yes, if your big is dick enough. Ask me how I know that.

[Anonymous No.15525365]

>>15525362
Then she wasn't a lesbian

[Anonymous No.15525368]

>>15525361
i don't have any experience with that, but i know lesbians use dildos, so there is that.

[Anonymous No.15525370]

>>15525368
A pussy is a pussy. It desires to be filled.

[Anonymous No.15525400]

>>15525362
>Ask me how I know that.
Your big dicked friend told you?

[Anonymous No.15525408]

>cont
Supposing that's true, I wonder to what extent their seeming preference for men (sex and romance) stems from heteronormativity. In a society that is 100% open to bisexuality and there's no benefits in dating men or women, would women's preference for men remain?

Going further with this idea, I wonder if in a society where lesbianism was the norm, there would be strictly heterosexual women who refused dating other women.

We know that lesbians (to some extent) have a biological basis, which stems from, for example, higher exposure to testosterone in prenatal development, which masculinizes the brain. But what about hetero women? It seems that even without that extra testosterone, they're still attracted to women, albeit less than lesbians. Is there an opposite development that makes them feel less attraction to women and more to men?

It's been proven that women's sexual plasticity can greatly be altered by social conditioning (this really shows how malleable women are, which is almost scary). If women are truly bi and their "heterosexuality" is merely due to social conditioning and tendencies, I wonder how deep that conditioning goes. It seems that most women raised in conservative societies haven't shown romantic or sexual interest in other women (of course, it could largely be because they can't). But is that lack of interest entirely repressed? Or do they have no interest at all given the conditioning? Maybe they aren't even aware of those desires? I know that there are plenty of examples of women who were openly lesbian or bi in traditional societies, but one would assume that there would be far more instances of bisexuality (I know they're still numerous, especially compared to men's) through history and across all cultures, especially seeing how men (in many cultures) don't see female homo/bi sexuality as bad as the male. Did they keep it a secret? Or their conditioning made them unaware of those desires?

[Anonymous No.15525409]

>>15525408
>cont
In contrast to this, it seems that females show a preference (at least romantically) for men even before much social conditioning has even ocurred. Maybe they're bisexual, but regardless of conditioning, they have a romantic preference for men because they're attracted to masculine behavior.

[Anonymous No.15525419]

>>15525361
Sexuality is a spectrum, and for women, said spectrum is more flexible.

Many women who self-label as lesbians still have sex with men. They're hilariously inconsistent.

https://contexts.org/blog/sexual-orientation-versus-behavior-different-for-men-and-women/

[Anonymous No.15525421]

I read a lesbian woman writing about how she fantasised about being raped by faceless men

[Anonymous No.15525423]

>>15525357
How do you know she isn't just repressing it? Also, maybe pussy is not for her for she's attracted to the female body as a whole

[Anonymous No.15525425]

>>15525421
I think we read the same post. Women's sexuality truly is a mess

I

[Anonymous No.15525433]

>>15525350
>A straight woman may get aroused by other women, but wouldn't actually have sex with one.
Lurking around the internet, many say that they aren't attracted to women at all, but I truly wonder if they're just repressing their attraction.

>wouldn't actually have sex with one.
If their heterosexuality is so fragile that it's reduced as just a choice, then they're not actually straight.

[Anonymous No.15525440]

>>15525425
I found another woman talking about how she only liked women but then somehow started fantasising and wanting to fuck her own dad so things happened and this then lead to and her girlfriend(?) moving in to live with her dad and both getting knocked up a couple of times each with all of them happily living together.

I'm generally sceptical of this sort of claim but she seemed sincere.

[Anonymous No.15525488]

>>15525328
Because society sexualizes women. Meanwhile, men are not presented as objects of sexual desire. When men are presented as attractive, it's through traits like power or wealth, not beauty.

In a vacuum, evolution selects for traits in women of physical attractiveness to men. Those that aren't strongly heterosexual fail to pass on their genes. It's a natural corrective measure.

[Anonymous No.15525490]

>>15525488
if evolution is real, as you say, and women always look for men with the best traits like providing security etc, then why do women commonly end up with total losers?

[Anonymous No.15525498]

>>15525488
Idk if you're implying that women can feel aroused by other women just because women are presented as objects of desire by society, meaning that their arousal is not biological but rather conditioned. If that's the case, I disagree

Men aren't presented as objects of sexual desire (at least in the same way as women) because women simply are not interested, only gay men are.

I wonder why women's hetero desire can't be visualy driven like their homosexual desire for women. Visual arousal for men definitely exist (gay men) so why don't women have it?

[Anonymous No.15525516]

>>15525423
Why are you trying so hard and have so little faith in people?

[Anonymous No.15525522]

>>15525516
I tend to be catastrophistic and jump to the worst possible conclusion


In this case, the data seems overwhelming. It's not some paranoia of mine, the same research papers suggest that those "heterosexual" women may not be aware of their true desires

[Anonymous No.15525523]

>>15525522
You sound like a yuritranny

[Anonymous No.15525531]

>>15525523
I don't consider women to be bi a good thing, isn't that obvious?

Yurifags are a bunch of agp troons

[Anonymous No.15525546]

>>15525365
Lesbians are a myth.

[Anonymous No.15525548]

>>15525531
I misread your comment, sorry.

[Anonymous No.15525555]

>>15525328
Their sexual instincts were totally vestigial, since the male instinct hard-carried them up until now. The only sexual instincts they can rely on now are the ones that bled over from men.

Anyway enjoy extinction birthrates; not every species can make it past the filter.

[Anonymous No.15525560]

>>15525328
>man watches pornographs
>focuses on woman
>"I want to fuck the pretty"
>woman watches pornographs
>focuses on woman
>"I want to be the pretty and get fucked"

[Anonymous No.15525566]

>>15525328
women only desire chad. they don't consider sub-chads to even be real men. women would rather date women than sub-chad. women hate sex and hate most men.

[Anonymous No.15525568]

>>15525522
Don't know what to tell you man. Maybe you need some time away from the internet, or at least get a 4X strategy game to get buried in.

[Anonymous No.15525570]

>>15525566
What're you talking about? Women love getting their pussies pounded and dominated.

[Anonymous No.15525572]

>>15525328
My woman is disappointingly extremely heterosexual.
>porn
She doesn't give the slightest shit about it.

[Anonymous No.15525577]

>>15525488
>When men are presented as attractive, it's through traits like power or wealth, not beauty.
That can still be them being presented as a sexual object.

[Anonymous No.15525584]

>>15525572
>Trying to watch the exorcist and she's just playing with my balls the whole time
It can be disappointing, yes.

[Anonymous No.15525602]

>>15525555
They definitely have some innate attraction to men/masculinity, even if it's so much weaker than men's attraction to women

I don't know how this works, but I too wonder if women's visual sexual attraction to women stems from men, in the sense that genes that made males even more attracted to women, and thus increased their reproductive success, also somehow made women more attracted to other women. Those genes wouldn't negatively impact women's reproductive success, because at the end of the day they'd have sex with a male and get pregnant, so they'd be carried over


This system definitely worked when women were dependent on males and contraceptives didn't exist. But now that they're free to fuck other women without male intervention (like in a harem) and use contraceptives, the system is collapsing.

If women date each other in bigger and bigger numbers, like trends suggest, the birth rates will take yet another hit (i know they could get pregnant if they wanted to from a sperm donor, but two women are still less likely to have children compared to a hetero couple). In South Korea, the birth rate is at 0.78 per womea, which is mind-blowingly low, and this is happening in a country where many women still identify as straight. There's a gender war going on in Korea that will push more and more women to date other women and the birth rate will sink even further.

The only solution are artificial wombs and highly incentivize people to have children, I guess. Ideally, we could genetically engineer women's sexuality so they're actually attracted to men and finally give the middle finger to evolution, which has blessed women with such a mess of a sexuality. Although if we ever get to that point, we could also make men less horny, because let's be honest, men are too much of a horndog

[Anonymous No.15525615]

>>15525568
I really do. But ever since I learned about women's sexuality, I can't look away. It shocked me, it's eye-opening and world changing. Heterosexual women are the biggest lie in history.

As a (actually heterosexual) guy I feel depressed by this, by how unrequited and unequal the attraction is. I guess it's gonna take some time to assimilate

[Anonymous No.15525620]

>>15525365
No true scottsman

[Anonymous No.15525621]

>>15525560
It kinda works that way, women's "heterosexuality" is very self-centered (it's almost as if they were autogynephiles)

But they not only want to be the woman, they also want to fuck that woman. I mean, the most watched porn by women is lesbian, they don't even need a male to make them feel more feminine or desired, lol.

[Anonymous No.15525626]

>>15525615
Spend some time on growing your own grass buddyro, I promise you'll feel better. I felt the same as you, yesterday, when I was scrolling through reels and saw an enormous amount of interracial trash. I put my phone down, hit the rowing machine and then picked up where I left off in the book I'm reading about Cortés' conquest of the Aztecs.

[Anonymous No.15525638]

>>15525566
I think their sexuality is highly malleable. In a society where they have a few options and are forced to marry, they'll adapt and come to desire the man or the few men that are available, because that's the maximum they can aspire.

But in a free society, where they can do whatever they want and have endless options from thirsty males, they'll aim for Chad and ignore the rest. Since the average male has become so unappealing for them, they'll probably end up having sex and relationships with either top males or other women, which on average are going to be more sexually desirable

[Anonymous No.15525639]

>>15525498
>Visual arousal for men definitely exist (gay men) so why don't women have it?


Perhaps it's evolutionary. Men in the past were often dirty and ugly simply from their labor. Therefore women that selected men based on looks reproduced less since they would have limited access to the noble men who could put on an appearance.

Even then, women are attracted to the status symbols around such. Suits, uniforms, etc.

So it was advantageous for women to select men based on non-visual cues, since visual cues left men covered in dirt and mud most of the time.

[Anonymous No.15525646]

>>15525572
>disappointingly extremely heterosexual.
You're a degenerate. I guess you want to force her to have a ffm threesome or something

How would you feel if she accepted and left you for the girl? Would you still think that her heterosexuality was disappointing?

[Anonymous No.15525649]

>>15525602
>>15525555

Doomposting about birth rates while the population is 8 billion is silly. It's just the human population decreasing to carrying capacity.

The real concern is dysgenic breeding.

[Anonymous No.15525651]

>>15525615
You must ascend to the point you no longer care about the whims of the lesser sex.

[Anonymous No.15525653]

>>15525626
I do from time to time, but the thought lives rent free in the back of my head. It's something I'm constantly reminded of. Hell, just today I saw two girls making out with each other

Again, I guess it's gonna take some months to assimilate it
>interracial trash
Fortunately it's not grounded on reality despite the propaganda. Ethnic groups tend to prefer each other

[Anonymous No.15525657]

>>15525653
Ride the tiger, bud.

[Anonymous No.15525663]

>>15525649
Do you think that birth rates will magically go up or stabilize once we start losing population by the hundreds of millions? Unless there's a major cultural or tech shift (artificial wombs) I don't think so

How much lower can birth rates get? Again, South Korea is only 0.78 when the replacement rate is 2.1. I don't think anyone could have expected it to fall this extremely low, and it keeps breaking newer lows year after year.

This could very well be civilization threatening. And it's also the main reason why mass immigration is being pushed so aggressively, which is leading to even more problems

[Anonymous No.15525665]

>>15525602
>in the sense that genes that made males even more attracted to women, and thus increased their reproductive success, also somehow made women more attracted to other women
Yes. Only one chromosome codes for maleness, and *zero* actually code for femaleness. Sexual overlap is a fucking mess, the only working solution (aside from pair-bonding solutions) is the one we have: code the stronger one (or, much easier, both) to desire the weaker one, because the weaker ones desire is irrelevant.

>>15525602
>Although if we ever get to that point, we could also make men less horny, because let's be honest, men are too much of a horndog
The male instinct is the only one reliable, assuming you keep sexual reproduction intact at all. If anything, it's clearly *not strong enough*, since female liberation or other social misbehavior is enough to overpower it.

But beware, if you delete the male sexual instincts, women instantly become a sub-slave class. We need men to have insane dopamine hits everytime they so much as look at a female shape.

>>15525649
The only reason our carrying capacity is so high is because the population (of certain groups) is so high. Humans increase the carrying capacity. Then you say shit about dysgenic breeding in the same breath? It's the high-IQ groups that are negative birth rates, this is species-ending.

[Anonymous No.15525666]

>>15525649
>Doomposting about birth rates while the population is 8 billion is silly
What matters is who makes up that number, european whites used to be something like a third of the world's population.

[Anonymous No.15525676]

>>15525651
I really need to take the clear pill. And so should everyone else tb.h

I was the romantic/idealistic type and this pill is tough to swallow. I knew reality wasn't a Disney romance movie, but goddammn, no one told me about female hypergamy, sexual narcissism, female bisexuality and the general unrequited attraction that men have for women.

But yeah, it is what it is and I need to move on

[Anonymous No.15525681]

>>15525657
Based Evolian

[Anonymous No.15525689]

>>15525663
>Do you think that birth rates will magically go up or stabilize once we start losing population by the hundreds of millions? Unless there's a major cultural or tech shift (artificial wombs) I don't think so

Did birth rates go down in the last 70 years 'by magic'? Why do you assume there won't be any major shifts in the next 70 years? You don't think the population being halved would inevitably lead to cultural shifts?

Your whole post is idiocy.

>How much lower can birth rates get?

The answer is clearly 0, at which point we most certainly have a problem.

As it is, .78 birth rate means a population of 50 million is going to be a population of like 20 million in 50 years.

20 million is still plenty to repopulate with. It's even historically higher than 99% of human history.

You're just brainwashed by the modern economic mythos of endless population growth.

[Anonymous No.15525699]

>>15525665
>The only reason our carrying capacity is so high is because the population (of certain groups) is so high. Humans increase the carrying capacity. Then you say shit about dysgenic breeding in the same breath? It's the high-IQ groups that are negative birth rates, this is species-ending.

You don't even realize you agree with me.

The problem is as I said it was, dysgenic breeding. You don't care about the overall population, you care about the population of people with High IQ's.

Reducing the population of idiots would be advantageous. You aren't upset the birth rate of the total global population is low, you're upset the birth rate of intelligent people is low.

You confuse these things.

>>15525666

Checked, again, you agree with me. It isn't about a population collapse, that's a silly thing to worry about at these numbers.

It's about dysgenic collapse of IQ.

[Anonymous No.15525703]

>>15525699
>you care about the population of people with High IQ's.
I mostly care about the part of the population closest in relation to me. IQ is important but there re other factors.

[Anonymous No.15525707]

>>15525703
Right, and I think you're trapped in a racist instinct.

I care more about many other things than simply race and those most genetically similar to me.

I prefer people of good character and intelligence regardless of their ancestry than for people that share a closer ancestry to me but are shitty idiots.

[Anonymous No.15525709]

>>15525689
>at which point we most certainly have a problem.
You have a problem at literally any negative level, and FAR before that if you have, e.g. pensions, social programs, industrial and technological systems, etc. that reasonably expect population growth or something other than complete population implosion (all of them).

The worst part is if you have existing social organization systems like, say, democracy, population inversion may not even be fixable to begin with. Or rather, only a technological solution would work since it entails social runaway.

And that's just keeping the lights on. You want innovation, or technological development, or to live longer or better or on other planets, or anything else that we should be able to do, but now can't because we -literally genocided- europeans and east asians.

[Anonymous No.15525714]

>>15525709
Most of are problems are a product of debt and financial enslavement

[Anonymous No.15525718]

>>15525328
Heterosexual men don't exist. Just look at this thread, there isn't a single one here.

[Anonymous No.15525720]

>>15525665
Your points are really interesting. I guess female-male relationships are rigged from the start and meant to be doomed in a free society, where the forces that led those instincts to appear in the first place no longer apply. We're animals who have just started to leave behind our biological programming.

>But beware, if you delete the male sexual instincts, women instantly become a sub-slave class. We need men to have insane dopamine hits everytime they so much as look at a female shape.

Right now, the men are the slaves. The simping is no joke, men constantly chase, treat women better, feel paternalistic about them and would betray a fellow male just for the chance of getting a crumb of pussy. Meanwhile, the women, who only have a passing interest in men, ally with each other (sorority) and actively push for misandric ideas, positive discrimination for them, promote a lack of accountability for women, and have massive double standards against men

And what do men do? We're slaves to our biological instincts and our unrequited attraction to women. The men pussy out and declare themselves to be feminists. Our ancestors dealt with this this mismatch of attraction by forcing monogamy and/or subjugating the women with their natural strength and dominance. This led to the advancement of civilization. Now, for the first time ever in our species, the system is falling apart.

I believe that eventually, as misandry becomes even more prevalent and a huge portion of men get no female attention whatsoever, the men will fight back. But I don't expect any sort of patriarchal restoration (which isn't fair, either)

I believe tech will fill the void and be the answer to those instincts. Robotwaifus and artificial wombs seem more and more plausible each day

[Anonymous No.15525721]

>>15525707
What other model do you suggest?

[Anonymous No.15525724]

>>15525709
>You have a problem at literally any negative level

You've never studied population dynamics. You're a moron. Your entire post is proof of it. Your entire belief system is proof of it.

>if you have, e.g. pensions, social programs

Fiat currency and all the systems around it are fucking fictions. The proof is how you claim they're importing foreigners to sustain the social systems, but those foreigners are massive net drains on the social programs. Fiat currency doesn't even need to be printed anymore, it's just a few fucking keystrokes at a computer, but it keeps idiots like you dancing to the tune.

Our entire world would be better off with a gradually shrinking population for the next 100 years.

> we -literally genocided- europeans and east asians.


There are 1.6 billion chinese. Are you telling me you don't think China is overpopulated? You don't think India is overpopulated?

You want the entire world to live at that population density?

I really hope you fail to breeed.

[Anonymous No.15525727]

>>15525699
>you agree with me.
I disagree that a social solution (short of everyone rewinding a hundred years or some shit) is possible. I disagree that we are anywhere near carrying capacity, even if technological and industrial progress ended forever. I disagree that removing, or even neutering the lesser populations would even significantly improve the situation in most of these cases. And if, as I have speculated, there is something completely broken with human nature or sexuality, increasing average IQ probably makes the problem worse, not better.

Eugenics would be at most tangentially related to the discussion. It is not clear there are even "good" genes to select for that would solve it.

[Anonymous No.15525728]

>>15525720
>Robotwaifus and artificial wombs seem more and more plausible each day
literal bughive technodystopia

[Anonymous No.15525736]

>>15525721
I mean, first and foremost, not confusing group statistics with individual capacities.

Yea, many populations have lower IQ's and cognitive abilities than Europeans and East Asians. Does that mean you prefer a retarded German procreating to a genius African?

None of the alleles related to the things you care about are solely restricted to a single race. Yes, they have drastically different levels of occurrence, but that tells you exactly NOTHING about whether any individual carries them or not.

You could say religion is the alternate model- we associate and give in-group preference to those with our values. Of course, religion was co-opted and is now worthless, but that's pretty much what you should be looking for.

You should realize that your allies are those whom you have common goals with. Not those that share your skin color.

[Anonymous No.15525742]

>>15525727
>I disagree any solution is possible

Doomposting

> I disagree that we are anywhere near carrying capacity

Let me guess, you've done absolutely zero research on the topic.

>too many mouths to feed

[Anonymous No.15525744]

>>15525718
Despite the traps and femboy thing (which are feminine presenting anyway) male sexuality is much more solid

[Anonymous No.15525750]

>>15525728
Sounds better than most men being forever sexless and single and total demographic collapse

[Anonymous No.15525753]

>>15525736
I am well aware of what religion is at the eugenic level, but it is only a fraction of a culture. Religions are vehicles of applied philosophies those that best represent the philosophies of the religion see higher birthrates.creating a self reinforcement effect.

Starting a cult is one way to change the world.

[Anonymous No.15525757]

>>15525744
>Despite the traps and femboy thing
Sounds like a sneaky fucker strategy, avoid being eliminated by other males and get closer to fertile females.

[Anonymous No.15525764]

trannies have it unironically pretty well figured out
this particular topic is practically half of the entire discussion at /lgbt/ but tldr women are basically auto-erotic

[Anonymous No.15525766]

>>15525764
They're narcissistic?

[Anonymous No.15525769]

>>15525728
There are other viable options he didn't list; we could manufacture genes for being attracted to men. You know, solving the puzzle that nature couldn't.

Of course since men have the complete genome, we'd just have to ensure we are able to turn it off in men, lest all men become bi. Which is probably why this gene never manifested before.

>>15525764
>trannies have it unironically pretty well figured out
Yeah except they forgot the part where you can't solve a technological problem with social policies and decisions. Obviously if humans were able to brain transplant or perform genetic therapies, I imagine the entire board would have no reason to exist.

[Anonymous No.15525776]

>>15525769
>we could manufacture genes for being attracted to men.
Which would have to be carried on the x chomosome?
>You know, solving the puzzle that nature couldn't.
How could putting genes to be attracted to men into the shared geneome possibly go wrong....

[Anonymous No.15525778]

>>15525764
Trannies are poisoned by pollutants everywhere around us, they're just the most sensitive
Something like porphyria

[Anonymous No.15525779]

I think the female form is objectively attractive, so women having bi tendencies makes sense
This is not a scientific line of thinking in any sense though

[Anonymous No.15525783]

>>15525362
how did he feel

[Anonymous No.15525788]

>>15525776
>Which would have to be carried on the x chomosome?
It could be carried on any chromosome. Men would always be able to inherit it.
>How could putting genes to be attracted to men into the shared geneome possibly go wrong....
In exactly the way I described in the second paragraph. Which is why nature failed: you'd want to code the gene and the off switch, ideally on separate chromosomes, which is extraordinarily difficult not to mention pointless if the solution I submit in >>15525665 is true. However, an engineer placing the required gene in the Y chromosome, targeting the gene in another chromosome, might be viable.

[Anonymous No.15525795]

>>15525788
If the gene was fixed homozygously on a non sex chromosome with an off switch on the y what happens when either mutates to nonviability?

[Anonymous No.15525797]

>>15525764
Yeah... It seems that the agp trannies were mostly right all along, lol.

https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations/4241/

Their "heterosexual" attraction seems driven by autoeroticism. The body of the male is just a mean to make themselves feel more feminine and desired.

As if that wasn't depressing enough, their homosexual attraction seems more driven from visual stimuli. They seem to actually be aroused by other females.

It all feels like a bad joke. The only ones who actually desire and appreciate the male body are gay dudes, lol. We should genetically engineer that desire into women and escape this scam that nature has imposed on us

[Anonymous No.15525810]

>>15525795
Depends on the mutation and how we actually want to encode it.

This is a totally pointless hypothetical anyway, since we presuppose effective genetic therapies and monitoring to implement the solution in question.

Unless you're looking to effortpost with me? I am not aware of the current research on this particular subject.

[Anonymous No.15525823]

>>15525810
There are some weird theories about gene harmonics that would probably fuck that idea up anyway

[Anonymous No.15525825]

I made the same thread on /lgbt/
>>>/lgbt/31657048

[Anonymous No.15525827]

>>15525779
You can find many things attractive and yet not be sexually attracted to them. The male body can be aesthetic, but I'm not aroused by it.

[Anonymous No.15525831]

>>15525825
Why did you back link it we'll be flooded with the mentally ill autists again.

[Anonymous No.15525833]

>>15525823
You could always actually do hormone-based strategies like the human body does now with lots of its dimorphism. I didn't want to mention that though since I assumed making men even a little bisexual is unacceptable and would make the schizos start attacking me.

[Anonymous No.15525839]

>>15525788
I think you would just increase the number of gay men.

[Anonymous No.15525841]

>>15525839
I mean hormone-based in the sense of gene expression and genetic therapies, not in the sense of hormonal therapies.

And more gay men but also improving birth rates is acceptable, right?

[Anonymous No.15525855]

>>15525328
>repress their sexuality?

nice circular argument.

You started with a question and then assembled the evidence given to you by globohomo until you reached the end. Well... i mean... not the end-end but enough to shut you up.

Keep this kind of thing up and you might get a job in the propaganda department!!!

Lets also observe not a single statistic or source was mentioned.

[Anonymous No.15525862]

>>15525855
So OP was a faggot and no one called him out on something so basic?

[Anonymous No.15525874]

>>15525862
im not reading all that just to get the chance to top level on you nerds.

I see what i see.

[Anonymous No.15525913]

>>15525855
>>15525862
>>15525874
I base my arguments on
>Social, historical trends and evolutive history

I didn't bother linking all the studies that I've read or historical evidence confirming this data, but there's plenty a google search away. Unfortunately it's not "globohomo propaganda"

In this past thread I posted multiple links to relevant studies
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/430816078/#430816078

[Anonymous No.15526121]

Studies seem to confirm that bisexual women are an intermediate between homosexual and heterosexual women in many aspects, including masculine behaviors, not just attraction. So I'd like to believe that, most women, straight or lesbian, despite being likely to be a bit bi, are not repressing themselves and truly have a strong preference for one gender of another


>A final point concerns bisexual women, who were intermediate between heterosexual and homosexual women in their sexual arousal and masculinity–femininity, but were significantly more feminine in their 2D:4D. One hypothesis is that due to intermediate dosages of genetic or prenatal hormonal influences, bisexual individuals, who could be considered to have sexual orientations between heterosexual and homosexual, also fall intermediate with respect to correlates of sexual orientation (Rieger et al., 2020). Thus, regarding bisexual women's 2D:4D, we assumed that they could also be intermediate between heterosexual and homosexual women on this measure. Contrary to this assumption, bisexual women had more feminine 2D:4D than both heterosexual and homosexual women (Table 1).

>it has been proposed that personality differences between homosexual and heterosexual women may be caused by exposure to androgens during prenatal development, whereas the distinct personality traits of bisexual individuals (e.g., higher sociosexuality compared to heterosexual and homosexual) may be a correlate of their higher levels of postnatal androgens

[Anonymous No.15526135]

>>15525328
female sexuality is conditional. They can control it better than men and use it only when the man meets certain conditions.

[Anonymous No.15526159]

>>15525361
>can a lesbian be aroused by men?
Lesbians are mentally ill, same as homo males.
So yes, a mentally ill person could be aroused by most anything, even something that they are supposed to be aroused by, such as a hetro-male.

[Anonymous No.15526186]

>>15525522
rope yourself troon

[Anonymous No.15526210]

>>15526186
You're very welcome to provide evidence that points towards the contrary


ironically, gay males who transitioned may be the only ""women"" who truly are "straight"

[Anonymous No.15526222]

>>15526210
neck + rope

[Anonymous No.15526248]

>>15526222
Nice arguments, faggot.

[Anonymous No.15526296]

The straight/homo paradigm is a modern idea. I don't think it's entirely accurate, even allowing for such things as bisexuality, etc. The ancients viewed it in terms of dominant/submissive, and I think that's closer to the reality of the matter.

[Anonymous No.15526305]

This thread was moved to >>>/r9k/73815187