Oh ok, troll. Yes there are some people who "go gay" in the fetish sense, solely because they are too ugly, but they are either desperate straight people or bisexual to start with for that to happen. So your theory is wrong and makes no sense. nature doesnt know how ugly you are
Hold up, hold up. You said "yes there are people who go gay in the fetish sense because they are too ugly" and this statement of yours completely agrees with my post. You affirmed exactly what I was arguing. Now tell me why you think I'm a troll and why you say my theory doenst make any sense? Do you agree with me or not mate?
Because there’s a difference between having gay fetishes and actually being gay. Just because some guys put things up their arse doesn’t mean they love men for example. So you are saying people with a gay fetish tend to be ugly rather than actual gay people tend to be ugly? Or that a large number of the supposed “gays” you find ugly are actually desperate straight people / bisexuals? You’re contradicting yourself.
You are a troll because you don’t understand homosexuality and that bothers you, so youre desperately trying to associate it with something negative and pass it off as a logical argument when it’s really just an opinion.
And also, before you write me off thinking this is a completely original idea, do me a favor and read this article, at least the first bit.
Please notice the 4th paragraph down that says
"Body image is a problem for many men regardless of sexuality. But it seems to be more of a problem in the gay community"
Even if you don't agree with what this article says here, at least don't think I'm an outrageous troll trying to spark contravesry, and at least one expert aggress with me.
When you said people 'go gay' in your earlier post I thought you meant they actually became gay in some capacity. Shoving things up your arse as a male does not make you gay, that is ridiculous. I've never heard the term 'gay fetish' but I see what you mean by that. You say I think they develop a gay fetish because they are ugly, which isn't the full truth. I never used the word ugly, because beauty and ugliness is too subjective of a thing, instead I am measuring by sexual attractiveness through the lens of the OPPOSITE SEX, which seems to be where your misunderstanding me. Their not ugly, they are in general less sexually attractive by the standards of the other sex. The people I'm talking about could either be regular gays, or straight people with a gay 'fetish' which would just be bisexual really. These people aren't "desperate straight people" they are people that would otherwise be straight, but because of their perceived lack of appeal to the other sex, they start to experiment or consider attraction to the same sex, and may develop same sex tendencies.
I am not a troll, but at the same time I am not fully convinced I am right either. I am uncertain what I really think, so I made this poll for a discussion. I am quite straight so I may be a little biased against homosexuals, but I still would like a more logical argument against my point than just saying that I'm a homophobe and a troll over and over again. Also, if you have your mind made up that I am wrong, which is fine, would you tell me why else you think homosexuality is on the rise these days. I mean you said earlier that our societies attractiveness standard is to high, and I agreed. I think this unrealistic standard may be the reason, at least in part, for the rise of homosexuality in modern society. If you don't agree what do you think caused it?
Being gay is more accepted now so that’s what would have caused it. Unless you can give specific examples what you mean by less physically attractive then it sounds like a lot of bs to me, sorry mate. They look the same as everyone else. Only difference is some present themselves in a less attractive way like the butch lesbo example I gave before.
Well at least you disagree politely! Now just to make sure. If I took 1 million randomly selected heterosexual women and had them rate the attractivness, like with a scale of 1 to 10, 1 million different homosexual guys and 1 million straight guys just by appearance not knowing their sexuality. Do you think the heterosexual women would score the straight men slightly higher than the homo's over that very large sample size or not? I think the straight men would have a slight edge.
At least you're being respectful in your argument. I honestly thought you were trolling (still unsure). Anyway I think they would be scored exactly the same, that is what Im trying to say. Now if you split it between "born gays" and "converted by loneliness gays", maybe there would be a difference. You should test this out.
Is it normal to think homosexuals are less attractive?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Oh ok, troll. Yes there are some people who "go gay" in the fetish sense, solely because they are too ugly, but they are either desperate straight people or bisexual to start with for that to happen. So your theory is wrong and makes no sense. nature doesnt know how ugly you are
--
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Hold up, hold up. You said "yes there are people who go gay in the fetish sense because they are too ugly" and this statement of yours completely agrees with my post. You affirmed exactly what I was arguing. Now tell me why you think I'm a troll and why you say my theory doenst make any sense? Do you agree with me or not mate?
--
mauzi
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Because there’s a difference between having gay fetishes and actually being gay. Just because some guys put things up their arse doesn’t mean they love men for example. So you are saying people with a gay fetish tend to be ugly rather than actual gay people tend to be ugly? Or that a large number of the supposed “gays” you find ugly are actually desperate straight people / bisexuals? You’re contradicting yourself.
You are a troll because you don’t understand homosexuality and that bothers you, so youre desperately trying to associate it with something negative and pass it off as a logical argument when it’s really just an opinion.
--
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
And also, before you write me off thinking this is a completely original idea, do me a favor and read this article, at least the first bit.
Please notice the 4th paragraph down that says
"Body image is a problem for many men regardless of sexuality. But it seems to be more of a problem in the gay community"
Even if you don't agree with what this article says here, at least don't think I'm an outrageous troll trying to spark contravesry, and at least one expert aggress with me.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/d9d886e1-b65c-40b3-8e3c-ad0f41aa1ea7&ved=2ahUKEwir_6vC2cPhAhUWiIMKHW2fBGYQFjAEegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3JjRgjEqNJmnxotY29u46o
When you said people 'go gay' in your earlier post I thought you meant they actually became gay in some capacity. Shoving things up your arse as a male does not make you gay, that is ridiculous. I've never heard the term 'gay fetish' but I see what you mean by that. You say I think they develop a gay fetish because they are ugly, which isn't the full truth. I never used the word ugly, because beauty and ugliness is too subjective of a thing, instead I am measuring by sexual attractiveness through the lens of the OPPOSITE SEX, which seems to be where your misunderstanding me. Their not ugly, they are in general less sexually attractive by the standards of the other sex. The people I'm talking about could either be regular gays, or straight people with a gay 'fetish' which would just be bisexual really. These people aren't "desperate straight people" they are people that would otherwise be straight, but because of their perceived lack of appeal to the other sex, they start to experiment or consider attraction to the same sex, and may develop same sex tendencies.
I am not a troll, but at the same time I am not fully convinced I am right either. I am uncertain what I really think, so I made this poll for a discussion. I am quite straight so I may be a little biased against homosexuals, but I still would like a more logical argument against my point than just saying that I'm a homophobe and a troll over and over again. Also, if you have your mind made up that I am wrong, which is fine, would you tell me why else you think homosexuality is on the rise these days. I mean you said earlier that our societies attractiveness standard is to high, and I agreed. I think this unrealistic standard may be the reason, at least in part, for the rise of homosexuality in modern society. If you don't agree what do you think caused it?
--
mauzi
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Being gay is more accepted now so that’s what would have caused it. Unless you can give specific examples what you mean by less physically attractive then it sounds like a lot of bs to me, sorry mate. They look the same as everyone else. Only difference is some present themselves in a less attractive way like the butch lesbo example I gave before.
--
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Well at least you disagree politely! Now just to make sure. If I took 1 million randomly selected heterosexual women and had them rate the attractivness, like with a scale of 1 to 10, 1 million different homosexual guys and 1 million straight guys just by appearance not knowing their sexuality. Do you think the heterosexual women would score the straight men slightly higher than the homo's over that very large sample size or not? I think the straight men would have a slight edge.
--
mauzi
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
At least you're being respectful in your argument. I honestly thought you were trolling (still unsure). Anyway I think they would be scored exactly the same, that is what Im trying to say. Now if you split it between "born gays" and "converted by loneliness gays", maybe there would be a difference. You should test this out.