Just because I'm attracted to males doesn't mean that I'm gay/bi

Because he's cute retard. Cute is universal. It has no gender bias. Cute is cute. Look at this gif. Is it cute?

Attached: 1529096458501.gif (320x436, 3.84M)

You're fucking him because you think he's cute, that means you have a level of attraction to him.
And while it is possible to think someone is "handsome" or "cute," if you have sexual thoughts as a result then it implies a level of sexual attraction.

I never said he was handsome. I said he was cute. Cute is cute. Why are you not getting this. It's not complicated.

He's too stupid to understand, just ignore him

I'm sorry for my countrymen being like this

I never said it has to solely be because "he's handsome." If you think he's "cute," then it implies a level of "femininity" associated with the man, but he's still a man. And if you're fucking a man because he's "cute," that doesn't nullify that you are still fucking a man. And you're just fucking a man because your brain is so screwed up that you're associating femininity with him.

Thank you, and all is forgiven. I do not hold one man's incredibly stupidity against your nation.
But I'm not attracted to him because he is a man. I'm attracted to him because he's CUTE. Do you understand CUTE. Not MAN. CUTE.

You think a man is cute and are fucking him because you think a man is cute. You are still voluntarily fucking a man because of some level of attraction toward that man.

I like women but wouldn't go out with one solely because she is a woman

hey fellas, being gay is nothing wrong! just b ur self!

Attached: 1538572780379.png (950x642, 549K)

>man is cute
W R O N G
R
O
N
G

Him being a man has no part of it. Cute is cute.

But if you are fucking a man, then you are conceding that he has fulfilling features to you that a female does not. If you are straight, then you will feel attraction toward women only and desire only to fuck a woman. If you are fucking a man, then you are no longer straight whatsoever. You are taking a standard that is normally applied to women and applying it to a male, and you are therefore conceding that by wanting to fuck a male, or at least being indiscriminate of gender, then you are no longer heterosexual.

Why are you not understanding this. It's so fucking simple man. Stop for a moment. And read this
>CUTE IS CUTE
It has no gender. Cute is genderless. Cute being on a boy or a girl is unrelated to the boy or girl. It is a state of being cute. You are not fucking that individual because they are a girl, or a boy, but because they are CUTE. Which CANT be gay since being gay is a state of being sexually attracted to MEN, which you are not, you are attracted to CUTE.
javascript:;

But if you think a male is cute and want to fuck him because he is cute, you are attributing certain features of attractiveness to him that appeal to you. You are still sexually attracted to him but you are not focused on masculine traits. And if you are willing to fuck a male, then you are either indiscriminate of gender, which then makes you bi, or you concede that the male fulfills a certain fantasy and fulfills certain traits that a female cannot.
You haven't defined what it is about cuteness that makes you want to fuck anyone, either. You can think someone is cute, but that is not reason enough to want to fuck them. There is a step between thinking someone is cute and fucking someone because "they are cute" that you don't seem to be considering. It does not matter whether you run mental gymnastics in your head of "well it's not gay because they're CUTE," you are still allowing yourself to have sexual relations with another male for a reason that does not simply have to do with "cuteness." "Cuteness" by itself is not a catalyst for sexual contact. You can think a dog is cute, that doesn't mean you want to fuck a dog. There is an underlying level of attractiveness that you feel toward that male that a female cannot fulfill the role of, and because you are knowingly fucking that male, it does not matter how you try to spin it, you are fucking a male consciously and knowingly, and you are therefore not straight.

Way to fucking long man.

What, you're not willing to put in the effort anymore to lie about your hidden bisexuality? Pity.

It's 7am here dude. I haven't slept yet. Keep this shit short or space it out over multiple posts. Be considerate.

CUTE = CUTE

Well it seems to be going in a fucking circle so I've decided to just get straight to the point, if you don't want to read it then that's your problem in addressing the argument.
You could at least do the honor of explaining what you find "cute" instead of being vague, however.

Holy shit it's actually 9am. What the fuck happened.

Oh yea, I can explain that. What I find cute. They have girlish legs, dress like a cute girl. And suck my dick like a dumb slave whore and swallow.

Attached: 1540938978626.gif (498x266, 856K)

So you are attributing feminine traits to them, then, as I pointed out.
You are focused on physical feminine traits, which implies that you are looking for sexual traits that appeal to you. Which means you are indiscriminate of gender, as long as they fulfill your particular desires. And because you do not care if it is a male or female, if you are willing to fuck a male because he fulfills certain requirements, then you are not strictly focused on heterosexual requirements which would dictate other female requirements.

However, if you are willing to fuck a male, then you are not heterosexual. If you are not disgusted with the notion of fucking a male, then you are permissive to homosexual fantasies, so long as they match your criteria. You are not focused on traits such as personality, demeanor, etc. that would otherwise define a more "innocent" notion of cuteness, but are instead focused on physical features that you have a sexual attraction toward.

>feminine traits
If those traits are cute then sure. But cute is cute. Being attracted to cute doesn't make you gay. Look at this gif. is it really a feminine trait. They could be male or female, and it would be cute. There is no feminine trait to this unless you're a south american machismo retard it's just cute.

Cute is Cute.

Trying to explain it is like trying to explain why Fun things are Fun. It just can't be done rationally.

Attached: 1533014284487.gif (500x264, 1.3M)

You are looking for specific physical traits. If it was merely a matter of something being "cute" on the basis of drawing fondness, you would not be physically attracted sexually to it. A puppy is cute, that anime is cute. But you are not going to fuck a dog and you are not attracted to that anime primarily for the way the action is expressed.
You are looking for "cuteness" as in physical traits that you find attractive, regardless of gender. You are conflating two different interpretations of "cuteness" as the same in your determining process.

wrong

>tfw no straight friend that fucks me everyday
why live

Then explain, because so far all I have to work off is "girlish legs, dress like a girl, give a good fuck like a girl." Which would indicate physically attractive features. You would have to explain further what makes it "attractive".

I explained it like a hundred times dude you just dont want to listen. Cute Is Cute.
Are you cute?

"Cute is cute" doesn't explain shit.

It does. I'm not gay, but I will fuck a boy that is cute. So if we accept the axiomatic claim that I am heterosexual, and we must since it is an internal state that cannot be observed or determined by a third party, then we must accept the hypothesis: Cute is Cute, and fucking Cute boys is not gay.

yeah thats wwhat people tell me

Post your stomach

>but I will fuck a boy that is cute
>but I will fuck a boy
So you are knowingly and consciously fucking a male indiscriminately. Ergo, you do not have instincts telling you that you fucking a male is wrong, and therefore you relinquish your heterosexuality.

And no, "cute" does not describe what "cute" is. You are using a vague adjective to describe a vague noun. And when you look up a basic definition of cute, it involves physical appearance. You are not attracted because of the personality or actions of an individual, you are attracted because they fulfill certain physical criteria that pleases you and makes you receptive to sex with them. And you are still fucking a male that has male hormones, a penis and testicles, the capacity to grow facial hair, an Adam's apple, and other traits associated with a male, but you are doing it because they have a certain feminine curve to their legs and maybe another part of their body, because they dress a certain way, because they may put on makeup and style their hair in a way that makes them feminine, and because they have the same sexual skills as a woman, which are a universal skill but not practiced by males except when they are not straight. But by asserting that you are willing to fuck a male simply because they have certain physical traits that appeal to you and thus are considered "cute", you are voluntarily relinquishing your heterosexuality to fuck a homosexual or bisexual male, making you bisexual as well. You are not homosexual, because you are not focused alone on males, but you are not heterosexual because you do not discriminate against males for females only.

But the object to which I am attracted is neither male nor female. It is cute. The use of the term boy is only in the context of this conversation. I could say person, or individual, interchangeably. Heterosexuality is never lost or confirmed simple because it is a non-factor. Thus we must fall back on behavior where it is a factor, mate selection based on gender, under which case I will chose the female gender. Thus I am heterosexual that will fuck cute boys.

Attached: 1524876328668.jpg (800x1080, 122K)

That's right

But if heterosexuality is a non-factor, then that would mean you are not concerned about preserving your heterosexuality. You are not discriminating by gender, therefore you are not prone to heterosexual tendencies. You still demonstrate a willingness to fuck a male if he pleases some simple physical fantasies of yours, yet he still retains masculine traits that would otherwise disqualify him as a "straight" option. You draw a line between masculine appearance and feminine appearance, but not between male and female. You are attracted to feminine traits. However, you do not distinguish between two genders that still have drastically differing appearances and behaviors. A submissive, feminine-looking male will still be different from a submissive, feminine female.
You also keep relying on vague notions of "cute" even after it has clearly been defined. You have a tendency to refuse to name what is "cute" other than physical traits, because you are afraid of confronting the reality that it is a series of physical traits that you are attracted to and are simply mislabeling as "cute" instead of "attractive". You almost seem to be afraid of being trapped into your own words, and are afraid to confront this reality, so you have to resort to asserting "cute is cute" to hide from the truth that you are not focused on behavioral or personality traits, it is purely a physical attraction that you are simply mislabeling.

But that's only from your own narrow definition of heterosexuality. Many consider having sex with a MtF to be heterosexual even if she presents as a male and looks like a fat balding man. Thus it is clear that the definition of heterosexual is somewhat subjective. By this measure my own preference is more concretely heterosexual than the pervading nation of the definition. Since I do not fuck men. But fuck individuals that are cute, or/and women.

The truth is you're attempting to apply your own narrow definition to the topic instead of considering the possibility that you're wrong. Your inability to think outside of your own narrow box makes even the simplest statement. Cute things are cute, impossible to grasp. Being attracted to cute things can't make you homosexual, or non-heterosexual because cute has no gender bias.

>this thread

Attached: 1543942546031.png (645x773, 11K)

Let's continue this discussion tomorrow in a similar named thread. It's 10am now and I haven't slept. I graps your argument and feel I can defeat it solidly if my mind was properly functioning but we'll see tomorrow.

Attached: 1517272055842.jpg (1280x720, 102K)

holy shit this thread have totally fucked up lmao

>Many consider having sex with a MtF to be heterosexual even if she presents as a male and looks like a fat balding man.
This is a highly debatable question in society right now, and the data suggests more that no, it is not accepted as heterosexual.
Regardless, however, you did not seem to to care much to challenge the notion of heterosexuality up to this point, so it seems that you are now starting to twist a meaning in your own interpretation that does not match society's alignment of what heterosexuality is, in order that you may still conveniently fall within the boundary of what a "heterosexual" is without facing the uncomfortable truth that you are bisexual.
You admitted that you fuck males, yet now you are trying to change the word to "individuals and/or women" to protect your thin and flimsy notion of heterosexuality.
I think the reality is that you are twisting words in ways that they are not meant to be twisted, so that you can have all the luxuries you desire. The fact that you refuse to admit that you are bisexual suggests there is a negative connotation of bisexuality/homosexuality that makes you afraid to be honest with yourself, and so you are lying to yourself in order to "fit in." When the plain truth is that you are fucking a male, which makes you a bisexual. The basic definition of heterosexuality is "direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex," with an added note of "sexual intercourse between individuals of opposite sexes," while the definition of bisexuality is "sexual or romantic attraction to members of both sexes," and an added note of "engaging in sexual activity with partners of more than one gender." By not fostering a direct desire toward women but instead desire toward "femininity," you are not placing emphasis on gender but instead on sexual traits. Because of this, you are accepting of intercourse with men in addition to women, and you are therefore in the camp of bisexuality.

Very well, go to sleep. But I will not be around tomorrow, as I have no further desire to keep explaining from different angles to someone who uses circular logic and contorts English beyond its intended meaning to hide himself from his true feelings.

Not attracted to males. Ergo can't be bisexual. Cute is cute. It has no gender bias. You claim a binary relationship of gender when clearly it is a spectrum. You ignore basic biological reality in favor of absolutes that fit your narrative while simultaneously accusing me of twisting words. In fact your accusations are nothing but rhetorical manipulations, and low-brow one's at that.

But unlike you I won't attempt character assassination or rhetorical trickery to win an argument, since my argument is iron clad. If bisexuality is defined as an attraction to both sexes, then I am not, because I am not attracted to males. That cuteness is not gender-biased is self evident. Because cute things are cute.

In short. There is no question about the truth of my arguments since your own is more and more depending upon cheap rhetorical trickery in a feeble attempt to abscond from the concrete realities of the argument. Instead depending upon semantic tomfoolery to attack my argument for the approval of the peanut gallery. I'm not impressed.

Its only gay if your dick is smaller than 8" and he isnt cute
If your dick is bigger than 8", he isnt gay and only has a dick fetish plus he is cute so you are fucking a cute straight boy, and that isnt gay

Attached: 1543664095714.png (271x288, 73K)

There is no character assassination, there is merely the observation that you do not seem to understand that you cannot twist words to mean vagueries that allow you to get by with whatever you want in order that you can fall into any camp you desire. There is a very basic definition of heterosexuality, bisexuality, and "cute". You failed to extrapolate your definition of "cute," and so I had to extrapolate it for you. You play loose and fast with "heterosexuality" when it still has a very solid basic definition, as does "bisexuality." Your entire argument is based on vagueries and making meanings whatever you want them to mean so you do not have to be labeled a bisexual. Because you seem to be afraid of that label for whatever reason, even though there is no reason to be afraid of being called a bisexual.
You are attracted to a state of physical attractiveness and are able to apply it to both genders. But this merely means that you find males able to fulfill a role such as women or even able to fulfill a role that women cannot. If you were heterosexual, you would stop at the line that "this is a male, and regardless of their appearance, I cannot have sex with him because he is still a male." By consenting to have sex with him, you are admitting you accept his masculinity and will still have sex with him anyway. Thus you are attracted to the male if he fulfills your criteria of physical attraction.
It is starting to become a game of chasing the weasel around the tree at this point. I have already pointed out basic definitions, I have already explained the logic, and you still have yet to provide your concrete definition, you are contorting words in a way that benefits you versus their strict and objective meanings, and you are absolving yourself of being labeled anything other than a heterosexual because you are clearly afraid of the ramifications of being perceived as anything but a heterosexual. It is time to accept that you are not heterosexual.