**** yall some nasty heffers

If you'd just give me Icky Vicky I wouldn't even have to post here anymore.

me and my friend had a very profound debate about the whole tranny issue last night

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3f6hlmg16g...convo.pdf?dl=0

Do you want to be porn buddies with me? Batlord can join too. We can get on skype and spank together.

Ok I'm in. As long as you don't look at my wang when you cum, that would be gay.

that would honestly ruin porn for me

It's settled we need to make a new forum group.

And not if I think of you as a woman.

Probably because you've lived a privileged cisgendered, heteroseuxal life, so the rest of society has been very accommodating to you and you haven't had to think in a way that challenges your preconceived beliefs. I would probably be in the same boat if my wife wasn't bisexual (I WAS in the same boat growing up in high school in the red state of Alaska). Thanks to my wife, I have been exposed quite a bit to the LGBT community.

In the end, there is no binary straight-gay. There's a scale from straight to gay depending on behaviors and attitudes towards particular stimuli. They use the Kinsey Scale in relevant sociological research:

0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual
X No socio-sexual contacts or reactions

So if you just blew a tranny once but are generally attracted to women, you'd be a 1.

This scale is based on actual sexual interactions and not sexual desire? That doesnt seem like a good way to rate people.

I don't think that the question was whether or not it made you gay, but whether or not the blowing itself was gay.

I'd say I'm a 2. Making out with girls is fun, and they're usually weaker than me, which pleases the inner sadist. I actually once threw a drunk slut on her bed so hard it broke and she got in huge trouble.

But vaginas gross me out, boobs I just enjoy looking at, not touching, and there's nothing like my manly fvcking barbarian overpowering me no matter what I do.

clearly you didn't read my OP. shouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about people

I skimmed the OP, but I didn't catch that; my bad.

The first half of each scale rating is desire, the second half is behavioral.

it's cool. most people generally seem to assume i'm hetero. tbh i really want nothing to do with the 'LGBT community' and i dislike the stereotypes and identity-baggage that comes along with identifying as anything other than straight.

dicks gross me out. :beer:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PP8ZgLtypU...color+copy.jpg

assh*les gross me out

Dicks only excrete stuff once a sex session. Vaginas are like... Always slimy. And weird looking. I like mine, don't get me wrong, but I could never be a lesbian or a dude.

i would love the opportunity to be a lesbian for like a year, then go back to being a guy

Butch or femme?

actually plants develop fruit for the intention of being eaten. it's like when bees pollinate flowers, the idea being to spread as far as possible and ensure greater genetic variety.

Plants are so smart.

Well, John Wilkes Booth comes off as a very hetero dude.

I hear you, people nail stereotypes to you and don't let you escape them sometimes. After people find out I'm a scientist, they start having all kinds of weird expectations, like I'm not allowed to have subjective feelings about things or something.

Not all fruits are edible. In fact, there are many fruits that are poisonous, developing that way specifically to avoid being eaten until they can drop and rot naturally (the rotting skin provides nourishment for the seeds).

Regardless, that's not what i'm talking about. The cells in a plant communicate with each other in a way that is similar to what complex creatures experience as "pain" (although without a nerve system, it is a rather limited response to stimuli). They grow towards the factors that allow it to survive for as long as possible and to the furthest extent of quality (for example, flowers leaning towards sunlight, vines moving in whatever way allows them to latch unto other plants, etc.) Just because a plant can't communicate that it wants to survive doesn't mean that it doesn't want to live as much as any other living creature.

Obviously, you can't feel too much grief for dead plants, or else you'd end up holding a funeral for every broken blade of grass. All i'm saying is that the distinctions we create between living creatures over which we should ingest or not, deciding which "deserves/wants to live more" than the other, are kind of foolish. Still, I feel bad for creatures that feel needless pain, which is why I avoid certain meats/companies until current practices are changed.

femme, but i would only want to **** other femme girls as well. don't really see the appeal in tomboys personallyi honestly think i would've been pure hetero had i not been friends with one particular dude when i was a teenager. i am honestly pretty close to being straight i think... i have a pretty strong preference for women... but i'm pretty open minded sexually

most non-straights seem to think you are born that way, and i think some are. but honestly i think sexuality is not as static as mostly would tend to believe. that movie about kensey sort of touches on this as well. not sure how accurate it was to kensey's real theories, as i haven't really looked into his work much.

My mom told me she was attracted to women from the earliest she could remember.

well the thread was basically questioning the moral distinction between financially supporting factory farming through the consumption of meat (which is arguably a pretty cruel process) for the sake of pleasing your tastebuds (as you don't really need to eat meat to survive anymore if you live in a developed country and have even a modest income) and having sex with animals for the sake of satiating one's perverse sexual desires. basically, the argument is that i don't believe animals truly do have any real 'rights' to speak of. at least not in any consistent sense. so talking about needing their 'consent' is really quite silly when you think about it. we don't need their consent to murder them or exploit them in a variety of other ways, yet we need their consent to sexually exploit them? it's just a bit silly to me. but i honestly don't really care that much anymore. it was just a thought i had some months ago. i'm not about to march on washington for some pervert's right to **** sheep any time soon. i just get a kick out of questioning cultural taboos.

that's cool. but my friend who is gay told me he wasn't attracted to guys in his early childhood. and i know i was straight until i was about 14-16. so like i said it might not be a black or white question.

I'd blow a transgirl.

Many moons ago I made out with my sweetie while he was dolled up like a lady. A+. 10/10. Would do a thousand times.

There's both a genetic component and a social component. But the social component is predicated on open-mindedness, which may, itself, have a strong genetic component.

Anyway, I don't really get the moral argument that people use this for; whether they were born that way or chose to be that way, it's a right they should be allowed.

^i agree. same with ****ing sheep imo.

Allowing fornication with animals would be tricky because it's hard to verify consent. For me, a majority of the time, consent is basically the deal breaker for whether a sexual act is moral or not.

Yes it's true, laws don't always make sense. For example, marijuana was outlawed for being "dangerous", while alchohol kills far more people each year than marijuana could ever hope to. But strides are being made to crack down on corporate animal cruelty, and companies are being pressured to use more painless methods of slaughtering (as well as more ethical feeding and breeding procedures). Believe me, you're not the only one to notice the hypocrisy in the government trying to prevent animal cruelty while turning a blind eye to horrible corporate practices.

But as for the whole "sex with animals" bit, just drop it. There is no possible way you can communicate with an animal to the level where consent without doubt could be gained. Like I said, it would be taking advantage of them regardless of the circumstances, just like it would be taking advantage of someone who has very low mental capacities (i.e. a serious mental disability) if you had sex with them, even if they came unto you.

i don't give a **** about getting an animal's consent, hence why it's not tricky to me. anyway, i will drop it. that argument was dead a long time ago but you weren't here when it was going on so i was clarifying what that thread was all about.

Spoken like a true rapist. I assume you were trying to say something along the lines of "I don't really care about this argument either way, so it doesn't matter to me"?

no, i was saying i'm not too concerned about animal rights in general. e.g. i eat beef even though i didn't get the cow's consent first. i don't even have a great reason for doing so. i just like the way it tastes. i wouldn't kill a human being, because i think murder is wrong. but i don't think murder applies to animals. i think ****ing humans against their consent is wrong, cause i value human rights. i don't care about ****ing animals without their consent, because i don't see any good reason to extend human rights to them. hence it is meaningless to me to raise the complaint that it's wrong to **** animals cause you can't get their consent.

i am willing to drop it cause that was another argument from another thread. but you said you wanted to talk about it here so i was clarifying my argument for you. it's cool if you're not convinced by it, though. but i'm also not convinced by the consent objection. unless you're a vegan. in which case it would seem a bit more consistent to me.

I think his point from the getgo was that if people are okay with killing and eating animals for selfish reasons why aren't they okay with raping an animal for selfish reasons? Is it really any less morally vacant to **** a sheep than it is to kill and eat it? I'd say both acts are atrocious and that was my argument against him. If I didn't feel that eating meat was wrong then I'd actually agree with him too, it's a pretty solid point.

I believe that only specific classes of animals can experience suffering. Probably most higher mammals (as they have homologous circuitry to ours associated with suffering) and birds (who evolved parallel to us and developed a lot of similar brain functionality).

I don't think plants, insects, or bacteria have feelings. Reptiles, fish, and amphibians (and other non-mammalian vertebrates) are in more of a difficult place to determine the extent of their conscious experience.

I still eat birds and mammals though, because I can't handle a vegetarian diet psychologically (I have tried).

i can honestly respect WD's stance. i'm just not enough of a saint to live that lifestyle. not today, anyway. maybe some day.

i don't **** animals, either way. but not cause i think it's wrong, just cause personally i don't find them all that attractive. they taste pretty great, though.

edit - correction: i don't **** non-human animals. cause i know one of you pedantic ****s will probably correct me on that semantic point :p

edit 2 - i have been trying to eat more veggies/fruit and less meat, though. mostly cause i've heard too much meat isn't healthy.

so where do you stand on raping fish?

how does someone even put their dick in a fish?

oh, it's possible. i've seen pics

edit - how about raping alligators?