I just red something that said 'a transwoman is not a man, so not being attracted to her is scientifically inaccurate'
a Transwoman is not a man.... Its a faggot, a cocksucker, a butthole bandit that used to be a man and is now a victim of their own idiocy.
+1 for butthole bandit
What about lesbian transwomen that secretly dig beefcake?
I know a woman who “went trans” to be a “man” but she still likes men... so she wants to be a gay man.... HONK HONK
nope, those are faggots, this game is really easy
If we're going with science here, let's talk biology. Our species reproduces sexually. Sexual intercourse is, distilled, the means of reproduction for our species. That's the primary objective of sex and sexual attraction - reproduction. Anything else (pleasure, dominance, etc.) is ancillary.
To become so obsessed with the ancillary that you abandon the primary is an abomination - it's a disorder that abandons the only true objective of sex. So faggots of all walks are practicing scientifically-inaccurate sexual intercourse, and if you go so far as to sterilize yourself in the pursuit of your faggotry, you've rendered it impossible to have "scientifically-accurate" sex.
I mean if whatever faggot said that followed logic and reason. But if they did, they wouldn't have that stance in the first place.
two people who penetrate one another sexually and do not have the potential to create life are deviates. they deviate from the natural order. no matter how they protest, it is an unnatural act. screaming to the contrary will not make it normal.
Yes I was taking the purist stance in regards to sex. This would make oral, anal, and even protected sex deviant. However I also argue that there are degrees of deviancy - protected heterosexual sex still has a possibility for reproduction, if reduced. Essentially all heterosexual activity has the possibility of leading to reproduction, so in terms of deviancy it is less so than all homosexual activity.
I used to believe in tolerance, but loud, imposing faggots are continually convincing me that my belief was misguided.
Most hetero sex is for pleasure, not reproduction. I have expanded many orifices in my 5 decades, but am not a father, as far as I know.
That being said, homosex is an abomination, and should be dealt with Old Testament-style.
Anything else (pleasure, dominance, etc.) is ancillary
I realize that - but having sex be pleasurable is an evolutionary trait geared toward reproduction. It is ancillary to the primary objective, which is continuation of the species. So to get lost to the pleasure as to lose sight of the goal is "anti-scientific." More realistically, it's morally objectionable - not that I haven't done the same myself, but yknow, I drink and shit too. It's one thing to indulge in pleasure in a controlled manner, it's a completely different (grotesque, hedonistic) thing to have it be the only focus.
Anyway orgasm is an okay way to get started, it feels good and all, but it's not near as fulfilling as having children, cultivating them, watching them grow. Pleasure vs. happiness.
* fuck just saw the username
"Science....."
(post is archived)