>>
>>21643
>we cannot assume the motives of another species
Mammals are all wired up basically the same, body and brain alike. We all crave interpersonal physical affection and warmth and touch and sexual stimulation of our genitals and anus. The largest difference is that humans are the only species which have systematically devised complex and even murderous social stigmas regarding when and with whom these behaviors should be practiced, which is irrational.
Animals do not do this. They do not care which body they cuddle to for affection, or which warm hole they stick their penis into to achieve orgasm. If you could ask a dog whether he would prefer to mount a male or a female, he would have no opinion; it simply does not matter because he gets the same fulfillment of his needs either way. If you ask him whether he would prefer an anus or a vagina, it would be the same answer (at least if his partner is a dog; a human vagina has no ring of muscle to hold his knot, so he would prefer the anus simply as a matter of utility). As for the other way around, while being mounted is a submissive (read: vulnerable) position few male animals will allow themselves to take, recall the near-identical physiology. Basically all mammals can and will experience some degree of pleasurable sensations from anal stimulation/penetration, due to the convergence of nerves in the pelvic area and positioning of the prostate and other accessory glands. Of course, the fact that this type of thing is "homosexual" does not factor into it; they only know it feels good.
The simplest solution to your initial question "How can men be attracted to women?" is easy: "Because they are told to." Just look at how universal the attraction to breasts are. Breasts are not sex-organs, and looking at primitive tribes you will see that the females do/did not even bother covering them, even when they wear loincloths. There is nothing sexual about breasts; it's an entirely socially-created mainstream fetish (and here I use "fetish" in its only correct definition: sexual attraction to an object or part of the body that is not a sex organ). There is no evolutionary or biological impetuous to be attracted to breasts, yet even very young boys all over the world will become aroused if they see a pair. Why? Because they are told to. Because it has been socially implanted into their mind as a fetish; because they are told that "this is a characteristic of the thing you're supposed to want to have sex with". Same with other "feminine" things, like long hair, flowery perfumes, high-heels, and jewelry.
Personally, I identify as gay for convenience, but at least in a physical sense I'm more like the dog in my previous example than anything else. I've sampled anal and vaginal sex (and a variety of toys which replicate the internal structure of both) and found little difference. Certainly, my penis doesn't care; it's fine even with just my hand. I prefer men because of their personality, and I prefer men with penises because receptive anal stimulation is also quite enjoyable. If I desired a biological progeny, obviously I would need someone with a functioning vagina and womb, and I SUPPOSE I would prefer the rest of the body to look like a man than society's current interpretation of a woman, but it's largely irrelevant. From my perspective of extreme cynicism (as shall be exemplified in the following section) perpetuation of this species is something I cannot support; elimination of the illogical biological is the only reasonable course of action for the future of this species, and inorganic life-forms would not require any genitals, and would have a wide range of physical form only to support a wide range of functions.
As for your previous post, you are largely wasting your time here. It should be completely obvious that anyone who can only debate by name-calling about tipping fedoras is a mental kindergartner. The vast, vast majority of people are the same, just less obvious about it. They cannot be swayed except by a position that they have already decided to believe. I've essentially given up trying to argue with human beings. There is only one logical way to win any sort of debate with — ie: win against — an illogical being, and that is to kill them. Hence why violence or the threat of violence is the primary method of conflict resolution throughout human history. Nobody ever comes to a consensus, here; they only come to a realization that they cannot kill the other party, and so give up.
]
[
class /
co /
eh /
fit /
halp /
jew /
lit /
phi /
pr /
rnb /
sci /
tg /
w /
zom
]
[
a /
grim /
hi /
me /
rx /
vg /
wp /
x
]
[
cake /
cd /
d /
di /
elit /
fag /
fur /
gif /
h /
men /
pco /
s /
sm /
ss /
unf /
v
]