Lesbians and bisexuals women don t exist

Almost 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. All 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, and the very idea of them doing anything remotely intimate with a woman disgusts them on a visceral and instinctual level and makes them want to puke their guts out. 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", 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 appreance. 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). 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 type 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.

Oh, and your idiotic, little harem theory is completely wrong, by the way, 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. The concept of harems is rooted in the practice of polygamy, which is not found in human populations as far back as the archaeological record conveys. In fact, evidence suggests that monogamous relationships were the standard form of human relationships for the majority of human history. Humans evolved from an apelike species, and the earliest evidence of their existence dates back to Homo erectus, which lived in Africa about 1.5 million years ago. This species lived in small groups, and there is no archaeological evidence to suggest that these groups practiced polygamy or harems. In addition, the modern human species, Homo sapiens, evolved about 250,000 years ago. Again, there is no evidence of polygamy or harems in these early populations. In fact, evidence suggests that early human populations were largely monogamous. Thus, the myth that humans evolved in harems is false. There is no evidence to support this claim, and the archaeological record suggests that monogamy was the standard form of human relationships for much of human history. 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? 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. A few studies loosely translating to an armchair theory is not enough for you to call something "the truth".

---

chuck sneed Other November 14, 2023 at 12:33 pm 1 0