Lesbians and bisexual women don t exist

It's Adam and Eve, not Eve and Butch.



100% of all women are 100% straight. Fuck off with this idiotic myth that "all women are naturally bi", or that "women's sexuality is fluid". It is not. Straight women are naturally 100% straight by default and are straight in the exact same rigid way that men are and feel literally zero sexual or physical attraction to women and only feel sexual and physical attraction (and arousal) towards men. The only reason they're comfortable being platonically intimate with other women is simply because there has never been any stigma attached to women being intimate with one another. If they had the same amount of stigma leveled against them that men have had since forever, then the very idea of them doing anything remotely intimate with a woman would disgust them on a visceral and instinctual level and would make them want to puke their guts out, much like it is for men. This doesn't somehow make their sexuality "fluid", it just means that they're not bothered by same-sex intimacy the way men are. If men also had no stigma attached to them being intimate with one another, then they would also be comfortable being intimate with one another. This also doesn't mean that same-sex disgust is somehow "learned", it's the other way around, it's inherent within all humans, male and female, and you simply learn to supress your natural disgust for it, especially women. Don't even try to contest this fact or contradict it. I am 100%, objectively, incontrovertibly correct about this.

And even amongst the incredibly small amount of women who PRETEND to be "bi", and pretending they actually COULD be genuinely "bi", they're at absolute most 5-10% bi at best and only possess a "romantic" or "emotional" attraction, not a physical or sexual one (the only two that actually matter), and are still infinitely more physically and sexually attracted to, and aroused by, men and men's physical appearance, because women literally can't get horny over females' physical appearance. They literally just can't. It just doesn't happen. There's nothing in their brain that allows them to be able to. They can't look at a woman's face and get horny over it. They can't look at a woman's body and get horny over it. They can't look at a woman's pussy and get horny over it. It's just not a thing. They can quite literally only be aroused by men's physical appearance/features (Men's faces, men's bodies, men's penises, etc). Basically, what you posit as sexual attraction to women is merely "emotional attraction" and you're confusing it with sexual/physical attraction, when it's nothing of the sort. Women can be sexually, visually, physically, romantically, and emotionally attracted to MEN, but when it comes to other women, they can very specifically only be emotionally/romantically attracted to women, never physically, visually, or sexually. Because of this, "emotional attraction" doesn't count as anything, especially not an ACTUAL, legitimate form of attraction or anything related to sexual arousal, and therefore should be automatically disregarded and treated as an illegitimate form of attraction, since only physical and sexual attraction/arousal matter and those aren't present in female/female attraction. Once again, don't even try to contest this fact or contradict it. I am 100%, objectively, incontrovertibly correct about this.

Even the dykeiest of all dykes who PRETEND that they have zero physical attraction towards men's physical appearance are completely lying and can actually ONLY be aroused by men's physical appearance, never women's (which is why they always need every girl to look as much like a guy as humanly possible before they can even be physically and sexually attracted to them). Even in their fantasies, they're always imagining a hot guy, never a hot girl. And on the off chance that they ever would actually fantasize about a female, they would make her look as masculine as they possibly can, since, once again, women literally NEED women to look exactly like men before they can even find them physically attractive or be sexually aroused by them, because, surprise, surprise, women on a biological, instinctual, and intrinsic level can not be physically attracted or sexually attracted to (or aroused by) the physical appearance of women. Who would have guessed something so blatantly obvious, huh? Once again, don't even try to contest this fact or contradict it. I am 100%, objectively, incontrovertibly correct about this.

"But what about women who watch lesbian porn", I hear you ask. Simple, they're still fantasizing about men, despite there being women on screen. See, women do this thing called "vicarious arousal". Her brain essentially goes "She's a woman and she's aroused, therefore, since I am also a woman, I must also be aroused". She's not being aroused by the actual woman herself on screen, she's being aroused by the fact that someone else other than her is aroused. She would experience the same thing if you showed her a guy being aroused or, hell, even a fucking animal. Although, in the case of the man being shown, she would experience both DIRECT arousal BECAUSE of the man himself while ALSO experiencing VICARIOUS arousal because he was aroused, as well. Women will also do this thing were they'll put on certain kinds of porn, yet not even fantasize about the kind of porn that's on screen. They'll put on lesbian porn, yet still fantasize about being kissed, held, and fucked by a man. No matter what, they're always imagining men, never other women.

Hell, even I'll watch something like, I dunno, white male, asian female porn, and then fantasize about fucking a white woman. Or if I see a circumcised dick, I'll just pretend that he's uncut and imagine a woman getting fucked by an uncut dick. This isn't just some insane shit that I'm making up, it's a very real thing that people, especially women, do.

"Well, then, why not just watch straight porn?" They do, but, again, it all comes down to vicarious arousal, along with female narcissism, and a lack of theory of mind. Women are very basic, very childish creatures, and they find it easier to project themselves on to someone or something if that person or thing is female as well. This is also why women almost never have any male role-models or why they're able to comprehend information easier, or are more accepting and receptive of information, if that information is conveyed by a woman. It's this very simplistic way of thinking of "she's a woman, I'm a woman, therefore X." Once again, don't even try to contest this fact or contradict it. I am 100%, objectively, incontrovertibly correct about this.

Oh, and to anyone who's gonna bring up that harem bullshit, your idiotic, little harem theory is completely wrong and is very easily debunked by pure common sense, logical analysis, and applying more than five seconds of thought on the matter.

Humans did not evolve in harems. This is a myth and there's no evidence to support it. In fact, evidence suggests that throughout history, human populations were largely monogamous and current trends of human relationships continue to substantiate this fact, as the vast majority of humans are still monogamous or primarily seek monogamy, especially women, as they're biologically designed to be inherently monogamous, not polygamous.

And besides, even if human beings did evolve in harems (which we didn't), there's no reason why women would somehow HAVE to become bisexual because of it. They could still just be straight and never do anything with the other women, with all of them existing as nothing more than side pieces who solely engage in sexual acts with the harem leader and never with each other.

And no, they also wouldn't have to resort to "lezzing out" while their husbands were away to sexually satisfy themselves either, you dipshits. They could just rub one out, wait for him to return, or fuck another guy on the side. Why would they need to resort to lesbianism to fulfil their sexual desires, especially as a first resort, when there are plenty of other ways to achieve it? That kind of behaviour would only occur as a last resort, and even as a last resort, they still wouldn't do it. Your logic makes no sense and is just retarded. Once again, don't even try to contest this fact or contradict it. I am 100%, objectively, incontrovertibly correct about this.

Also, have you ever wondered why there is little to no documentation of female/female sexual interactions throughout history until extremely recently? Oh, that's right, it's because it just didn't occur back then. And no, it's not because women were somehow good at hiding it and keeping it under wraps or that people just didn't care if women engaged in homosexual acts with each other, or whatever other convenient excuse you have, it's just that it never used to happen. Besides, even if it did (which it didn't), you would still have to try to explain away why there's basically no records of female homosexuality from back then, and sorry, but "people simply not caring enough to document it" isn't a good enough explanation. There are endless accounts of dudes fucking each other throughout history, dating back thousands of years, but not even one instance of women fucking each other. Weird. You'd think that if it was such a common thing (which, according to you morons, it was), that it would be talked about all the time and documented, right? Hell, they felt that men bumming each other was significant enough to document, so why not women smashing clams? I mean, SURELY if women were all engaging in sexual acts with each other, there would be at least SOME records of such a thing, right? But no, nothing. Oh, and because I know some retard is gonna bring it up, Sappho of Lesbos isn't even a real, historical figure, by the way, she's a made up, fictional character invented by some horny, Greek coomer, you dumb fucks. Think about it. Women are barely self-sufficient today. Do you honestly think for a single second that women BACK THEN would have somehow been able to run a whole entire island by themselves? NO!!! Of course fucking not! Women back then were essentially perpetual children with basically zero education about anything (so, really no different from today)! What the fuck makes you think they would be capable of such a thing? Are you fucking retarded?! Yes, you are. Once again, don't even try to contest this fact or contradict it. I am 100%, objectively, incontrovertibly correct about this.

Oh, and any "study" you try to dig up in a poor attempt at trying to refute my arguments is completely made up with forged data. It's literally all fake. The experiments quite literally never even took place. Not to mention, a few measly studies loosely translating to an armchair theory is not enough for you to call something "the truth".

---

anonymous Political April 20, 2024 at 3:54 am 1 1