First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Would We All Be Gay If…
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 6/9/09 , edited 6/9/09

drizza wrote:


Yei wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:


Yei wrote:
And I thought guys stopped caring that much about breasts anymore, and cuteness was alot more important now.


What planet are you on? You can look through any and every porn site and I doubt you'll find any of them advertising cute faces. It's not wise to judge guys based on what you see in anime/manga, especially if it's shoujo.


Sorry, I meant non-perverted or creepy guys. A couple guys I know say they'd prefer cute and small breasts to not cute and huge breasts.


Lol you dont have to be perverted to have that certain attraction. Just like women who are attracted to guys with an athletic build does that mean they are hoes?


I was talking about the porn site thing lol

I just assume most guys don't decide what kind of person they want to have a real relationship with through porn sites.
1244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/9/09
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/9/09 , edited 6/9/09

makix wrote:
Programming one gender to into liking another gender with different characteristic is one thing. Programming one gender into linking the same gender, on the hand, is completely different.

Obese and plump women were considered desirable in those times because simply, fat women ate well and fat women who ate well had rich families. (I'm not going into euphemisms like "buxom", because they're fucking fat.)

Secondly, once the theory of "Homosexuality is genetics" is completely proven, this would be impossible.


No, the theory is not proven, people who are just desperate for affirmation of their beliefs dilute themselves into believing that it is proven fact but it is in fact not fact. Well, of course you’re not going to take my word for it. You’ll continue on with your baseless opinion no matter what I tell you. So, instead of me telling you, I’ll just show you what the scientists have to say about the subject:

According to the American Psychological Association:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.
-http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31


What determines whether people become homosexual or heterosexual? Although there are a number of theories, none has proved completely satisfactory.
- Feldman, Robert S. Understanding Psychology. 8th ed. New York City: McGraw-Hill, 008. Print. (See page 382. It's in the last paragraph.)

Studies make it very clear that genetic information seems to play a role but is not the sole determining factor. For example, the average homosexual man has one brain type while the average straight man has another. However, this is not universal. Some straight men have the brain type associated with homosexuality and some gay men have the brain type associated with the straight man. This means that if you have the brain type associated with gays you’re more likely to be gay but not that you ARE gay. Biology is playing a role but it’s not dictating the results.

The twin study-identical twins have identical genetic information; therefore, is homosexuality is strictly genetic then you will never have a pair of identical twins where one is gay but the other is not. The study concluded that if you have a twin who is gay you’re more likely to be gay yourself (statistically,) than the average person. However, there still were many sibling pairs that did not fit into this norm. Again, this suggests that genetics are playing a role but that there are other factors you cannot dismiss.

Unless of course you’re just desperately clinging to some shred of pseudo-fact so that you can think you’re right.

In addition, there’s a difference between being buxom and fat. Buxom is a descriptive term referencing those plump but curvaceous, bony, and bosomy women you occasionally see. An obese woman does not fit into this category. Obese women during the middle ages were not considered to be attractive. So, if your theory that weight was a symbol of wealth then buxom and tubby women would be attractive but to a lesser degree than the half-ton-woman. But, that’s historically inaccurate.

Moving on, let’s ignore weight and use other features. Blond hair was nearly universally popular among Americans in the 19302-1950s. Today we’re developing a trend where many people are not going after this archetype. How about fashion. What was considered attractive apparel in the 1970s is gaudy today, but if we had lived in the 1970s we would’ve inexplicably found these tawdry baubles attractive. It’s programming.

Now, replace the ‘blue eyes,’ feature with ‘big balls,’ and you’ve made a nation of homosexuals.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 6/9/09 , edited 6/9/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


makix wrote:
Programming one gender to into liking another gender with different characteristic is one thing. Programming one gender into linking the same gender, on the hand, is completely different.

Obese and plump women were considered desirable in those times because simply, fat women ate well and fat women who ate well had rich families. (I'm not going into euphemisms like "buxom", because they're fucking fat.)

Secondly, once the theory of "Homosexuality is genetics" is completely proven, this would be impossible.


No, the theory is not proven, people who are just desperate for affirmation of their beliefs dilute themselves into believing that it is proven fact but it is in fact not fact. Well, of course you’re not going to take my word for it. You’ll continue on with your baseless opinion no matter what I tell you. So, instead of me telling you, I’ll just show you what the scientists have to say about the subject:

/facepalm
I said ONCE it's proven, not "it's been proven". (And yes, it's an opinion and I'm prophet-izing it because it's just an opinion, not a fact.) Fucking read before you decide to spew garbage out of your mouth. I seriously can't believe you posted all that junk without even properly reading my post. Do you answer questions in exams and essays without reading the prompt? Because I'm pretty sure that you do and it's the reason why you can't do anything right.


SeraphAlford wrote:
In addition, there’s a difference between being buxom and fat. Buxom is a descriptive term referencing those plump but curvaceous, bony, and bosomy women you occasionally see. An obese woman does not fit into this category. Obese women during the middle ages were not considered to be attractive. So, if your theory that weight was a symbol of wealth then buxom and tubby women would be attractive but to a lesser degree than the half-ton-woman. But, that’s historically inaccurate.

*Makix throws Sarcasm at SeraphAlford*
*Sarcasm goes right over SeraphAlford's head*
*Makix /facepalms*
*Makix inflicts 99,999,999,999 (99,999,999,899 Overkill) to himself*
*Makix dies*

10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/9/09 , edited 6/9/09

/facepalm
I said ONCE it's proven, not "it's been proven". (And yes, it's an opinion and I'm prophet-izing it because it's just an opinion, not a fact.) Fucking read before you decide to spew garbage out of your mouth. I seriously can't believe you posted all that junk without even properly reading my post. Do you answer questions in exams and essays without reading the prompt? Because I'm pretty sure that you do and it's the reason why you can't do anything right.



Glancing back, it does seem that I overlooked the ‘once’ in your post, and for that I apologize. As far as “I can’t believe you posted all that,” or whatever, I actually copied and pasted it from a conversation I had in another thread.

As far as ‘read before you fucking post,’ why should I bother to take my time and carefully scrutinize what you write down if you’re not even interested enough to use basic grammar skills? In the end I’m going to have to decode what you’ve written anyway. I mean, let’s compare your two posts. In the first one you apparently wrote: “once it gets proven,” prophesying as fact that it WILL be proven. You did not express an opinion, “I think it will be proven,” you said it will get proven. You didn’t say, “if,” but "once," that’s stating a fact. Yet, in your second post you wrote:


it's an opinion and I'm prophet-izing


So, you were not stating an opinion but you apparently meant to. You were not trying to prophesy but you did. What you wrote and what you wanted to say are two completely different things. So, what’s really the point in reading your posts? I mean, if it was a quiz I would read the questions for the sake of my grade. Should I be reading a novel I’d carefully scan the pages so that I know exactly what was going on. When it comes to chattering with you over the internet, however, it seems that no matter how carefully I read your posts I’m not going to get the point anyway.

So, if you want somebody to take the time and ‘fucking read,’ then I recommend you pull your head out of your ass, flip the keyboard over, and stop typing like a handicapped twelve year old. Then again based on what I perceive of your intellectual prowess thus far, it’d be out of place for me to assume you’re even capable of using proper punctuation. Another alternative would be copying and pasting your sentences into Microsoft word and then proof reading it to make sure you’re not saying the exact opposite of what you mean to say as you did here.

Nobody expects perfect grammar. I can live with run on sentences and dangling participles but if you really want people to thoroughly read your posts at least try to make yourself appear quasi-literate.


Also, you don't seem to know what sarcasm is. You wrote:


Obese and plump women were considered desirable in those times because simply, fat women ate well and fat women who ate well had rich families.


I simply explained that if fatness was simply being employed as a measure or show of wealth, then the greater measure of fatness would demonstrate a higher measure of wealth; therefore, by your logic the medieval men would’ve been interested not in fat women but grotesquely obese women. They were not. There was simply an ideal weight that is higher than the modern standard.


P.S: This convo made me think of:

5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 6/9/09

Yei wrote:

I just assume most guys don't decide what kind of person they want to have a real relationship with through porn sites.


We don't, but popular porn sites are a good indication of what men overall are sexually attracted to. I don't think there are very many non-perverted men in the world, they probably just don't act like it around you.

IMO, a guy who's into cute faces and small boobs sounds like a pedo to me, since those sound like traits of girls who just hit puberty, no offense.
293 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Honolulu
Offline
Posted 6/9/09
Well its been found that a persons sexual orientation is predetermined before birth so I'm going to say no to that one.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 6/10/09 , edited 6/10/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


/facepalm
I said ONCE it's proven, not "it's been proven". (And yes, it's an opinion and I'm prophet-izing it because it's just an opinion, not a fact.) Fucking read before you decide to spew garbage out of your mouth. I seriously can't believe you posted all that junk without even properly reading my post. Do you answer questions in exams and essays without reading the prompt? Because I'm pretty sure that you do and it's the reason why you can't do anything right.



Glancing back, it does seem that I overlooked the ‘once’ in your post, and for that I apologize. As far as “I can’t believe you posted all that,” or whatever, I actually copied and pasted it from a conversation I had in another thread.

As far as ‘read before you fucking post,’ why should I bother to take my time and carefully scrutinize what you write down if you’re not even interested enough to use basic grammar skills? In the end I’m going to have to decode what you’ve written anyway. I mean, let’s compare your two posts. In the first one you apparently wrote: “once it gets proven,” prophesying as fact that it WILL be proven. You did not express an opinion, “I think it will be proven,” you said it will get proven. You didn’t say, “if,” but "once," that’s stating a fact. Yet, in your second post you wrote:


it's an opinion and I'm prophet-izing


So, you were not stating an opinion but you apparently meant to. You were not trying to prophesy but you did. What you wrote and what you wanted to say are two completely different things. So, what’s really the point in reading your posts? I mean, if it was a quiz I would read the questions for the sake of my grade. Should I be reading a novel I’d carefully scan the pages so that I know exactly what was going on. When it comes to chattering with you over the internet, however, it seems that no matter how carefully I read your posts I’m not going to get the point anyway.

So, if you want somebody to take the time and ‘fucking read,’ then I recommend you pull your head out of your ass, flip the keyboard over, and stop typing like a handicapped twelve year old. Then again based on what I perceive of your intellectual prowess thus far, it’d be out of place for me to assume you’re even capable of using proper punctuation. Another alternative would be copying and pasting your sentences into Microsoft word and then proof reading it to make sure you’re not saying the exact opposite of what you mean to say as you did here.

Nobody expects perfect grammar. I can live with run on sentences and dangling participles but if you really want people to thoroughly read your posts at least try to make yourself appear quasi-literate.


Also, you don't seem to know what sarcasm is. You wrote:


Obese and plump women were considered desirable in those times because simply, fat women ate well and fat women who ate well had rich families.


I simply explained that if fatness was simply being employed as a measure or show of wealth, then the greater measure of fatness would demonstrate a higher measure of wealth; therefore, by your logic the medieval men would’ve been interested not in fat women but grotesquely obese women. They were not. There was simply an ideal weight that is higher than the modern standard.


P.S: This convo made me think of:

Yes, because I'm going to aim at perfect grammar when I'm posting in a forum. Sounds like a good way to spend my time.
(P.S. Your grammar is just as good/bad as mine. )

Nice to know that I hit a nerve of yours.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 6/10/09

makix wrote:
Yes, because I'm going to aim at perfect grammar when I'm posting in a forum. Sounds like a good way to spend my time.
(P.S. Your grammar is just as good/bad as mine. )

Nice to know that I hit a nerve of yours.


Lol, how much time does it take to throw down a few extra commas?
17060 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Dreamland
Offline
Posted 6/10/09
if in terms of gender,we would all be gay if there's no girl in this world.
I hope not, i dont wanna be one =X
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.