|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Question for guys and girls
Posted on: April 26, 2012 - 6:46pm
  Offline
Question for guys and girls
Girls: Do you find two girls kissing attractive? Would you consider it gay to say another woman is attractive?
Guys: Do you find two guys kissing attractive? Would you consider it gay to say another guy is attractive?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
So No and No. I'm assuming you want a reason or explanation or this thread is gonna be really short.
The first No is cut and dry, but I don't get a big thrill seeing anyone kiss- even two girls.
As for the second No- I can observe that someone is a decent looking guy without being attracted to him. Just like I can say someone is ugly without becoming completely nauseous at the sight of him.
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
Yes assuming they are attractive guys.
No, its not gay.
Little bit of a biased place to ask this though.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
On both questions - No. Not attractive. Yes, it is gay to say you find a guy attractive. Attractive means you are ATTRACTED to them. If you weren't attracted to them you might say "He is handsome".
For a bonus, I don't find two girls kissing attractive nor them having sex. It doesn't bother me if two guys or two girls are screwing each other. It's just what it is. I have no emotional connection to either of them.
would depend on the 'guys' involved.
Yeah Bum, I can't believe I'm bored enough to go into semantics, but I"m not with ya on that one. If you consider another guy to be attractive, you can just be saying how you could see how someone could be attracted to them. It's just an observation.
Just like i can find a story to be believable doesn't necessarily mean I believe it.
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
Strange way to ask such questions. Just trying to start a thread?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Not particularly
No I think its a little gay and suspicious to go out of your way to make sure everyone knows you can't see godd looks in a man. I can freely state with no threat to my heterosexuality that David Becham is clearly an attractive man. But when a guy says that (well a straight guy anyway) its in a *Ya I can tell its obvious* way, I would still gag if he tried kiss me lol.
No, and no.
I don't much find enjoyment in watching anyone kiss. So much more fun to be the one kissing.
I can tell when someones attractive, but only the female form pumps my blood.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
If we imagine in this scene two appealing women kissing who are genuinely into each other and get more excited as they kiss, sure. That's a turn on for me.
Two guys not the same. Which do you prefer, captain, seeing you're asking but not saying.
It's generally considered gay to always want to sleep with members of the same sex. Recognizing good looks is irrelevant.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I can see if you specifically say "I could see how a gay person finds this person attractive" or " I can see how a girl finds him attractive", but this has gay tendencies. In order to say this you must be able to look at a man and think what it would be like to be gay.
christ, this sounds like one of julio's old retarded threads.
Or yet another "why do people do this... ?" thread that apparently reflects pineapple's complete lack of familiarity with human sexuality.
I have no idea who julio is, but I'm pretty much ditto anyhow. It's mostly another pointless semantic debate.
Alice... tone down the :herp derp:, will ya?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
yup...but lighten up guys, it's just the captains randome bi-weekly buzzed post after a few vodkas, lol. Heck with the lack of reasonably sane theists visiting the site, I've even been posting some random stuff just for the hell of it.
Imaginary vodkas, right?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
if cap has ever had so much as a sip of vodka, then i've shot up bleach.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
julio was this weird old south african guy who used to start lots of threads here asking things like why people like hamburgers and who are the beatles and why do they live in a yellow submarine. he also liked to explain why it was good that certain animals, including lions, were rapidly going extinct. as far as i know, he never actually responded to anyone else's threads, nor did he ever contribute anything thought-provoking.
he hasn't been around in a while, knock on wood. he rates up at the top of my most irritating contributors list, right along with furry, nony, abu lahab, jean chauvin, matt shizzle, and that total nut who has it in for james randi and illustrates his incoherent rants with pictures of squirrels firing m-16s.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
That being said, I sincerely hope that he was attacked and eaten by one of these guys and
converted into a pile of lion shit.
kinda liek me m i rite?
Needless questions actually.
If you look at sexuality as a range instead of what is between the legs then the answer to all the questions, is yes, no, and depends. Life is a range, not an absolute so what works for one individual in what they are attracted to, or "what gets them off",
As an individual I AM attracted to two women having sex. But there are bi men who will have sex with a man and a woman because they either like both, or like the idea of "fairness" in getting the woman off on watching two men.
Now, just for the youth who might read this. While there is nothing wrong with sex when the parties agree, the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancy or disease is to not do it. Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating the superstitious bullshit of religion of "put pill between your knees". Just saying know how your body works, what the implications are, CONSENT most important, don't bow to peer or partner pressure. But when you do decide to do anything, wrap it.
Babies cost money, disease costs money and could cost you your life. But there is nothing wrong with sex and you don't have to be a label to do with someone else you enjoy doing in the context of consent.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
it'll take a couple years of hard work before even you are as random as julio, cap, but this thread was a good start. i believe in you.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Are you really this desperate for male attention?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Take Pineapple, for example. She gets off on all the negative attention she gets from us, here... apparently.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)