/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2396730]

Science can't change homosex to heterosex, or viceversa. Not in humans.
Scientists can't even understand sexual orientation and never will.

Infinite_Being_of_Mystical_Power (also called Nature): 1

Science: -<span class="math"> \infty [/spoiler] (forever dumb)..

[Anonymous No.2396765]

>>2396730
http://www.zmescience.com/medicine/genetic/gay-gene-found-lesbian-mice-study-0232321/

Faggot

[Anonymous No.2396786]

>Scientists can't even understand sexual orientation and never will.
I take issue with this statement. Firstly, a lot *is* known about sexual orientation.
Secondly, you have no way of knowing what will be discovered in the future. Claiming that we will never understand something is just plain stupid.

[Anonymous No.2396818]

>>2396765
Mice, fruitflies, rams, etc.
Learn to fuckin read, moron. The thread says science will never understand human sexual orientatioin.

[Anonymous No.2396862]

>>2396786
>Firstly, a lot *is* known about sexual orientation.
A lot of superficial correlations. Almost no predictibility, no biomarker, no actual knowledge comparable to what has been obtained with some animal models.

>you have no way of knowing what will be discovered in the future
I tell you what, it can be estimated.
Some 50-70 years ago it was Freudian bullshit (scrapped as false), then it was hormones (some evidence, but still nothing to allow predictability or manipulation in humans), then it was genetics (most studies on small smaples, not replicated), then science moved to epigenetics, then it will move to gene-hormone interaction, then it will move to ion channels, then to quantum effects in the brain, then to wow,itsafuckinmystery,jpg. So it seems it will go back to mysticism.

[Anonymous No.2396874]

>>2396765

they need to move the gene knockout to another genetic background (mouse strain) before that can be said with certainty, and it still isn't seen in Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM)

[Anonymous No.2396894]

Psychology is a soft science. Therefore what they know about humans does not matter.
</thread>

[Anonymous No.2396905]

>>2396862
It probably has a small genetic correlation, but it's likely mostly environmental. Think about it like this:
- a small environmental factor causes some changes in early brain development, this leads to some changed brain structures
- many years later those brain structures will make it more likely for you to develop certain emotional memories than in other cases
- those emotional memories will now cause you to like or dislike certain things and bias your thought process, for example you may develop all kinds of weird fetishes, biases, and so on.
It's obviously a very complex process. How would you change it? Memories are distributed throughout the neocortex and other parts of the brain. You might be able to condition an individual into changing some of of his/her preferences, but why would you bother? Everyone's mind is quite unique, I don't really see the point in changing such intricate things unless those things are harmful to them in some way.

[Anonymous No.2396921]

>>2396862
> then to quantum effects in the brain
If I hear this shit one more time. Most things in the brain are pretty high-level. While quantum effects have some minor influece on how neurons work, neural networks are resistent to error/noise, thus quantum effects are unlikely to ever make a real change in the way the brain works, also the only case where this could have been the case was in microtubules, but that was shown to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.2396940]

>>2396921
>neural networks are resistent to error/noise
Hardly. Consciousness happens around recurrent processing, which is a back and forth signal amplification across the same network of neurons. We don't know why it's done, but it certainly has the effect of amplifying small signal properties, which could easily quantum noise.

[Anonymous No.2396994]

>>2396905
lol, how much speculation you spewed there.

Let me bring you some news. Science hasn't proven able to understand consciousness and neither was it able to understand sexual orientation. It seems scientists had some luck with animal models, but humans remain elusive creatures. Despite having huge databases of genomes and homology maps and whatnot, it seems science cannot understand something which is a common mammalian behaviour. It shouldn't be very complex if the limbic system was inherited from all the way down from reptilians to humans. So cut the crap with emotional memories and cortex, nature doesn't play dice with a vital behaviour like reproduction. If it's vital it;s mostly non-optional, so it doesn't depend on some fickle environmental flukes to establish a critical behaviour for the spiecies.

[Anonymous No.2397072]

>>2396940
Have you ever looked at the input that comes to V1? It's noisy as hell. The neocortex learns common statistical patterns through its hierarchical layers and the way information propagates through the hierarchy leads to patterns becoming more stable and overall noise filtering (which is why you could use a system like this to reconstruct images: it's how various digital vision systems work). You could deliver a noisy image and a clean image and your brain will till recognize what it is correctly due to the statistical features it has. Noise in the upper parts of the hierarchy (such as prefrontal cortex) would be harmful indeed, but even so, the way the system is structured is quite resistent to noise.

>>2396994
You don't need to understand the hard problem of consciousness. You probably will never be able to understand it, since it's not physical. It emerges from physical properties, or most likely due to how overall system organization, but it's not physical itself. No philosophers will tell you is, they'll either say that there's no hard problem (we imagined it all) or that it emerges from the brain organization (such as if you were to replace each neuron with a digital version gradually, it would still result in the same conscioussness). However, even if consciousness cannot be understood, that doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to decode neuronal encodings if you tried hard enough: you would probably be able to find out what you hear, what you see, what you imagine in various parts of the cortex, if you could capture enough data from large enough neuronal populations, I'm not saying it's easy or even possible to that extent today, but it's mostly an engineering challenge.

[Anonymous No.2397081]

>>2397072
> continued
As for nature, it does indeed play dice: there's a lot of harmful things in our genetic code, and some of them are merely suppressed by other genes, however you still have a certain precentage of the population afflicted with various nasty genetic diseases. I'd say a 10% failure rate (for example: doesn't reproduce) is tolerable. A lot of our features depend on complex environmental factors to work right. You do know that entire species go extinct because of minor environmental changes as well, right?

[Anonymous No.2397324]

>>2397081
Wasn''t the main principle of evolution to promote passing genes on?
If science cannot explain how could some organisms be unable to reproduce, it means that evolutionary theory is wrong and science cannot explain how could a species have as much as 1 in 10 individuals reproductively impaired. Unfortunately, I must agree with what OP wrote. This is not a minor snag, but it contradicts the main evolutionary principle and thus science itself. All the explanations which try to take this into account using group inclusive fitness arguments are at best mathematical speculations.

[Anonymous No.2397423]

>>2396730
What science can't religion can. Some religious psychologists did a few studies which showed that their clients changed their homosexual attractions into heterosexual ones. All their clients were strongly religious, so apparently there is some effect coming from their beliefs.
So maybe it is true that this century will either be religous or will no longer be. Science only leads to nihilism.

[Anonymous No.2397450]

>>2397324
You don't understand evolution or biology.
Evolution is basically just:
- An organism's DNA suffers mutations due to chemistry and physics.
You're not going to deny this.
- In organisms which allow sexual reproduction, there is a lot more variety allowed (than those reproducing asexually) since traits are combined from parents (result of how male and female gametes form an embryo).
You're not going to deny this either, again, easy to verify.
- Some organisms die, other survive, due to a large variety of reasons (environmental, genetic, etc).
You really can't deny this either.

Now those 3 factors are very observable and simple, and they are the basis of evolution as you know it. If something can't reproduce, it will probably die off eventually. Evolution just means that those that manage to pass on their genetic code will do so (see, very simple). This does not mean that a species won't lose certain generally useful features if they're not useful in the environment, or that genetic drift won't exist, or that only fit individuals will survive if the species as whole provides a way for most people to survive(see: humans). If only some 10% of the species don't reproduce is not really a huge problem since the species itself can continue along just fine. If sexual orientation depends mostly on common environments (such as prenatal hormones, common life experiences(liking those that are not like you/unusual)) it would still mean that in 90% of the cases, genes would be passed on just fine.

You won't prove evolution wrong by showing that a species has some 10% non-reproducing members. Do you know that about 98% of the species that existed died off? Nature is blind, you either survive or you don't.

[Anonymous No.2397479]

>>2397450
What you wrote is pure speculation. You assume what types of causes could be and then make an argument based on assumptions.
Because, if sexual orientation is unchangeable then it cannot be primarily environmental. People would learn what kind of environments lead to non-reproductive individuals, so they would avoid them.
If the environmental factor is biological, again, aren't most physiological functions regulated by genes? Then what genes would build an environment for a baby which is programmed to be non-reproductive. This contradicts the fitness explanation.

Lastly, if there are genes that predispose to that, then evolution should have already weeded them out a very long time ago. Milions of years of evolution would have selected the best organisms in terms of reproductive fitness. 10% is a very big part of a species that can't reproduce. Name another species in which 1 in 10 organisms are exclusively homosexual, like in humans.

[Anonymous No.2397497]

>>2397479
Humans are already living comfortable lifes. They can afford to be unfit as they have societies. Try putting a middleaged human in a rainforest and see if he survives without any help.

> What you wrote is pure speculation.
What did I speculate? Most of my post was about /observable/ facts. The only part that is half-speculation is:
> If sexual orientation depends mostly on common environments (such as prenatal hormones, common life experiences(liking those that are not like you/unusual))

However, the whole prenatal hormone theory is the leading theory at the moment with regards to sexual orientation, and it sounds fine since there are observable cases where twins with nearly identical DNA can have different sexual orientations.

It just means that "evolution" merely picked a non-genetic means for picking the sexual orientation. It should also be mentioned that humans have much greater control over their instincts and behaviours than most animals as we have the illusion of free will (resulting from focused consciousness which itself results from having an enlarged prefrontal cortex and having invented language (vocal chords contributed here)).

Anyway, a 10% non-reproducing population is not a problem. Besides, organisms are constantly evolving, and humans don't have many natural incentives to evolve any particular way, mostly because we have a society which ensures most of us survive without major efforts.

[Anonymous No.2397552]

>>2397497
>the whole prenatal hormone theory is the leading theory at the moment with regards to sexual orientation
Theory...Very few evidence and mostly inconclusive.

>It just means that "evolution" merely picked a non-genetic means for picking the sexual orientation.

You mean humans have a sexual orientation which is not the product of genes and it could be anything environmental? Not only nature would be playing dice, in this case, but the probability of having even more non-reproductive individuals would be much higher. It would be 50-50 for each individual.

Judging by the evidence which shows in animal model studies that genetics program sexual orientation in mammals, there would be no reason for nature to leave it completely to chance in humans.

>cont

[Anonymous No.2397555]

>cont

Also, considering that the parts of the brain which are responsible with reproduction are not unique to humans, but are inherited from mammals, then it's not some recent influences on the brain (which cam together the formation of bigger societies) that could have done established some new mehcanism for sexual orientation in humans. Humans should have a mechanism similar to other mammalians, if evolution is correct and humans have inherited the limbic system from them. Most of what makes us human comes from the enlarged development of the frontal lobe, that is the frontal cortex and from the cortex in general, so it's not where sexual feelings come from.

[Anonymous No.2397566]

>cont
Also, considering that the parts of the brain which are responsible with reproduction are not unique to humans, but are inherited from mammals, then it's not some recent influences on the brain (which came with the formation of bigger societies) that could have established some new mehcanism for sexual orientation in humans. Humans should have a mechanism similar to other mammalians, IF evolutionary theory is correct and humans have inherited the limbic system from them.

Most of what makes us human comes from the enlarged development of the frontal lobe, that is the frontal cortex and from the cortex in general, therefore it's not where sexual feelings come from. So your argument is nebulous at best.

[Anonymous No.2397619]

>>2397552
Genes obviously contribute to it, but it may be that environmental factors can change it (either very early or during the course of one's life). What if the genetic factor is to produce the right hormones at the right time?
> Not only nature would be playing dice, in this case, but the probability of having even more non-reproductive individuals would be much higher. It would be 50-50 for each individual.
Why would it be 50-50%? If that hormone theory is correct, it's something which doesn't happen that often. If it's due to an unusual environment later in life, it means it's not something that happens too often.
>>2397566
> some new mehcanism for sexual orientation in humans
Why does it have to be a new mechanism? The old brain can still provide all the emotional stimulus you need for (obviously irrational) sexual urges to appear and guide/inform the thought process (neocortex + thalamus). Are you going to say that there's a genetic component to the countless fetishes humans have managed to come up? I'd say most of those are due to emotional memories/"imprinting".

While I've given you my views on the issue, mind telling me what is your view on it is?

[Anonymous No.2397624]

This thread upsets me. The fact that troll threads survive this long . . . shakes head solemnly while preparing a gun to shoot myself with.

[Anonymous No.2397639]

>>2397624
This is not a troll thread. If science failed, it's likely that more people will lose faith in science and move on maybe to mysticism.
Most people on the planet already believe in a god, now imagine the rest who don't are begining to doubt science has the answers to essential issues with a moral impact on society.

[Anonymous No.2397688]

>>2397639
Science can't fail, because failing means learning.

As for the rest of the sentence, back to /x/

[Anonymous No.2397708]

>>2397619
Again, many studies have been done, but no such environmental factor has been found. So it's speculative to say there must be one. And even if it was, it is likely that a 1 out of 10 effect would have alerted people enough to avoid it.

>If that hormone theory is correct, it's something which doesn't happen that often.
The neurohormonal theory of brain development is based on mice and rats studies. It says nothing about how often this effect would occur in humans.

>Are you going to say that there's a genetic component to the countless fetishes humans have managed to come up? I'd say most of those are due to emotional memories/"imprinting".
Still, the prevalence of heterosexuality is high, that of homoseuxality is also high for a non-reproductive behaviour (if exclusive), but paraphilias are a lot rarer. Maybe your argument with random environmental factors would explain paraphilias/fetishes, but surely not something which affects up to 10% of a population. In that case, there must be something quite robust in influence.

>mind telling me what is your view on it is?
Hard to tell. Considering that homoseuxality is taboo in most advanced societies, probably there are even more homosexuals then reported. I have read all the theories on this, but after considering all the facts and the lack of facts, they are all more or less informed speculations.

The brain architecture of sexual feelings is not known. Correlations do not explain how different brain parts work to produce similar results in time and how those patterns developed. Also, no credible developmental theory exists or facts to support it.

[Anonymous No.2397709]

>>2397688
>it can't be shown with numbers
>i don't wanna learn about it

you know what else can't be shown with numbers? the number of your sexual partners.

[Anonymous No.2397733]

>>2397688
Science will lose its importance if people don't think it's able to solve some big issues. Look at how fickle the science on the different health benefits of differen substances is. You know what people are starting to say? "Science says one thing this year and the opposite next year -- and papers sell both". That means they lose trust in science as a paradigm.

See for yourself, for more argumented reasons:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

So if science eventually fails to give answers to morally important issus, people will think it's just some stuff some geeks do, and it's only necessary to build their gadgets, but that is all.

The next move will be that they will no longer believe in it, but in mystical stuff.

[Anonymous No.2397747]

actually there is a pretty god understanding
and there were experiments done to mice and monkeys
we can turn them homosex at will
but you can't fix them.. at least not yet

there is a process during development
once this process is finished there is no way to turn things around
and all the experiments have shown is that this will work with humans too
but no one will let them test on a human baby just to prove a point

[Anonymous No.2397748]

>>2396940
[Citation needed}

[Anonymous No.2397755]

>>2397708
> but paraphilias are a lot rarer.
I really doubt this. Just look at 4chan, look at boards like /jp/ where almost everyone has a fetish. I don't know A SINGLE PERSON whom I've discussed about such things to not have fetishes. Zero. It's not just being attracted to a gender in general, but attracted to a large variety of specific characteristics.

I consider my sexual orientation to be a complex web of fetishes centered around the female body - such a web developed during my puberty and still continues to develop in my 20+ years, however such development is biologically informed.

>>2397733
Science progresses through failure. If the public chooses to be stupid and irrational, they're free to, even if it'll lead to their own harm.

[Anonymous No.2397751]

>>2397747
Show the evidence or you troll.

[Anonymous No.2397761]

>>2397755
>implying big pharma isn't testing failed vaccines in Africa
Yep, if you ignore it you get harmed.

[Anonymous No.2397767]

Science can change homosex to heterosex and viceversa. It's called shock therapy.

[Anonymous No.2397778]

>>2397755
Oh c'mon, sexual orientation is not a fetish or is not made out of fetishes. Paraphilias substitute the real sexual object with something related to it. They are exclusive, not complementary. If you're a paraphiliac, you can only perform sexually in perverted, abnormal conditions. That's very far from sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is very simple to check (in men). Put them in a lab, have their penises connected to plethysmographs which measure penile enlargement, and show them porn. If they get erections for one particular sex they are oriented towards that sex sexually. The empirical evidence shows this happens on a sex-exclusive basis in men. Let's not cloud facts with personal impressions and generalisations from an imageboard known for its large userbase of paedos and other sexual rejects. That is selection bias at its fullest.

[Scientist No.2397785]

>>2397778
>conflates paraphilia with fetish
>uses the word "abnormal"
>completely misses the fucking point

[in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2397786]

I know why homosexuality exists -- Singularity Mathematics, Singularity Science and Singularity Religion. (Maths: '+' holds significance. Science: 'future' holds significance. Religion: 'male' holds significance). In a literal sense, even though it's obviously wrong, it teaches that:

-Women don't exist.
-Yesterday never occurred.
-Adults are born and not babies.
(and more).

It's subtle mysticism - homosexuality is educated through suppression of the mind in the incorrect and evil Singularity poison. We do no't have the capability to think the opposite (I do) of what our educators teach us, we follow their words with one eye closed - putting full trust in what they're teaching us (and turning our blind eye to what they're not). This is the main cause of the suppression, and is the cause of Homosexuality.

[Scientist No.2397788]

>>2397786
Hey what's up Aether? Having fun being insane, as usual?

Die in a fire.

[Anonymous No.2397797]

Honestly, I wish people would stop making such a big deal out of homosexuality. They certainly exist and make up a rising volume of the population, so the first order of business should be to treat homosexuals and transgenders as a proper group of people. Not some anomaly or disease.

If even half the work that went into finding a gene for homosexuality was instead put into researching better hormone therapy or surgeries for transexuals, or for legal equality in marriage and legal name/gender changes, things would be significantly different. This debate hasn't gone anywhere in eons, and has done nothing but create more controversy, while SRS still has a stunningly high failure(and even FATALITY) rate in some modern countries, with parents still ostracizing their children for homosexual or transgender beliefs and even goddamn companies being boycotted for acts of LGBT support(see home depot).

Isn't it more of an anomaly how much LGBT people are hated? Nobody's studied that phobia and senseless vehemence?

[Anonymous No.2397805]

Homosexuality is apart of nature it's just not the norm.

[Anonymous No.2397806]

>>2397785
"If a fetish causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life, it is diagnosable as a paraphilia in the DSM and the ICD."

Yeah, well, not all fetishes are paraphilias, but if someone is only able to have sex with a part of a sexual object, I'd say that is pretty fuckin abnormal. If you can't be attracted to the body of a person, you are abnormal and you cannot relate to that person and have sex with her.
If you use the fetish as part of a normal relationship, then there's nothing abnormal about that. But the argument was precisely about the main component of a person's sexuality, which is the orientation to a particular sex, not some kinks they have besides their orientation.

[Anonymous No.2397808]

>>2397778
Sexual attraction is within a multidimensional range.
One could even say that it's the result of a lot of interacting dynamics.

It's true that one will usually get aroused towards one gender by watching porn, but that's just the normal and average response to such a thing. It does not negate that sexual attraction is a very complex phenomenon, informed by both environment and biology.

[Anonymous No.2397810]

>>2397786
Everything that you just typed is complete and utter nonsense. Only because you used a FFVII Advent Children picture with your post.

[in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2397813]

It's an abomination, in a literal sense. Unlike most Christians, I have no problem with the homosexual, I think it should be controlled as oppose to extinct (immediately).

Trust me, it's through singularity poison, which obviously grows throughout society. The homosexual will then pass on abominated spirit to others - people are then taught by the Singularity and it's offspring.

[Anonymous No.2397816]

>>2397813
People actually think this way? Sounds like you grew up in a cult.

[Anonymous No.2397818]

>>2397797
Actually there is quite few research in this field and little money to go around. And phobia has been studied too, quite a lot within this field.

Also, what the hell are you talking? No one implied that it is abnormal. The thread is about how science was unable to find an answer. Transsexuality is, on the other hand, abnormal, according to science.

[Anonymous No.2397822]

Actually, Robert Heath managed to get a homosexual man to enjoy having sex with women by implanting his brain with an electrode in the pleasure area. He stimulated this area while the man watched soft porn of a female, over time conditioning him to enjoy the experience. He then tested this by paying a prostitute to have sex with the man and monitoring his brain activity. He recorded the subject as receiving pleasure from the experience.

sauce:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Top/ecomments/4735/

[Scientist No.2397828]

>>2397806
I think you two are just talking past each other, using different connotations of the world fetish.

I have a fetish for petite passive women. I have a fetish for Asian women. I have a fetish for cuddling and touching.

Is that fundamentally different than a man with a particular sexual liking for men? I think no.

Also, this whole "abnormal" bullshit is precisely that: bullshit. Repeat after me: what is moral is not necessarily natural, and what is natural is not necessarily moral. It doesn't matter if homosexuality is natural or not. It has basically nothing to do with its moral-ness.

[Scientist No.2397829]

>>2397816
It's Aether. You can tell from his name and style of posting. We at /sci/ are not quite sure if he's the best troll ever, or actually completely fucking insane. Either way, ignore him.

[in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti !B.0X4iZ/uM No.2397839]

There are many abominations, homosexual seems to be branch of abomination - Atheism is also an abomination - Mad scientist is also an abomination. So really, they're all faggots (sons of the singularity). They worship themselves. Richard Dawkins prefers Atheism because it suits his self, not the world, same with all the of parasites.

[Anonymous No.2397850]

>>2397828
"According to the ICD-10-GM, version 2005, fetishism is the use of inanimate objects as a stimulus to achieve sexual arousal and satisfaction; in most cases said object is required for sexual gratification. The corresponding ICD code for fetishism is F65.0. "

"Furthermore, it must be noted that according to the ICD, an addiction to specific parts or features of the human body and even "inanimate" parts of corpses, under no circumstances are fetishism, even though some of them may be forms of paraphilia."

I think you were talking past your brain or already conducted science.

[Anonymous No.2397853]

>>2397839
Stop posting shit in this thread. This thread was serious until you arrived.

[Anonymous No.2397854]

>>2397853
He can't hear you.

[Anonymous No.2397860]

Aether reads like that Netjester AI from 420chan, if it was given only timecube and the cliched /sci/ trolls.

[Anonymous No.2397946]

>>2397850
I suppose me (the other poster in this thread that used the term fetish, claiming that it's incredibly common or the basis of sexuality altogether) and Scientist used a different definition than the common one. My understanding of the term has always been a characteristic or pattern that causes arousal. For example, female breasts and ass would very well be a fetish; attraction to various forms of 2D/drawn characters would also be a fetish. Anything that causes me sexual arousal would be a fetish, thus my attraction to females is just a complex web of fetishes, possibly biologically informed. I dislike to think of sexual attraction in simpler terms like just "attraction to a biological female" since it really does not work like that for me, and it doesn't work like that for anyone that I've discussed it with; it's attraction to various features and patterns, most commonly found in females, which basically means my attraction will tend toward females, but it isn't as arbitrary to say that if I see a female I'll be attracted to it because my genes say I should be, if I'll be attracted to her and by how much depends on a really large variety of factors.

I think other forms of sexuality are just like this, except something happened along the way which guided the process in a less common direction than the statistically common one.

[Scientist No.2397957]

>>2397946
I think I'm agreeing with you, with a rather loose definition of fetish. Everyone has their own fetish. No one simply likes the whole of the female body, with sex in the missionary position for the purposes of procreation.

Hell, anyone who got off to that specifically definitely would have a fetish.

[Anonymous No.2397984]

>>2396730
The people that write this magazine are fucktards.

[Anonymous No.2398011]

>>2397957
Fetish has a scientific definition and that definition includes only inanimate objects, while making it clear that parts of body are not included. Whether you choose to give a different connotation to that term, is your business, but science is not done on a whim.

[Scientist No.2398020]

>>2398011
Really? Citation please?

[Anonymous No.2398037]

>>2398020
See >>2397850

>Caption: univers for :)

[Scientist No.2398059]

>>2398037
Oh... meh. That thing. That thing which used to call homosexuality a disorder, but then they voted and changed it. I don't give too much credit to that thing as a useful set of definitions, or even psychology.

That doesn't seem to be the standard man's definition of fetish. I am still curious if most professional circles use fetish only when applying to object. Got any other cool sources? Are you in the bizz?

[Anonymous No.2398088]

>>2398037

Not actually a citation of anything there, chief.

Go fuck yourself.