you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 48 points 10 months ago (11 children)

Alright, so you’re looking at a hot man or woman. You recognize that their characteristics are attractive. Maybe you like big titties, maybe you like developed delts, maybe you like a nice set of hands. Most anyone who sees these will say something to the effect of “oh yeah, those are fine body parts. I have no issue viewing them.”

Genitalia, on the other hand, are not one of the most attractive parts on a person. Just look at the sort of pelvic accessory you’re not interested in (bi people, I’m sorry) and you’ll pretty quickly realize that they’re just no fun to look at. When you get closer and you’re hit with acidic or ammonia-esque scents, it only gets worse.

In order to get around the minor issue of procreation avoidance, a portion of your brain chimes in and says “well actually, it’s not so bad. Give it a chance.” Consider the difference between your perceptions before and after puberty, if you’d care to understand on a human level. (Ace people, I’m sorry) Or check out more articles if you’d like to study this a bit further.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] 44 points 10 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    The paper from 1942 was meant to establish long standing scientific curiosity about the topic, you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I agree with you, but you have to put forward a point that doesn’t stand atop misunderstanding a citation, or else I’ll name you another foodstuff

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Wait, goober is a foodstuff?

    ???

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Another name for a peanut. Not sure how it became a soft pejorative, but I’m a fan

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    What?

    I've literally never heard of goober as meaning peanut.

    I thought it basically just meant 'glob' when describing a physical thing, and when describing a person, basically the same as 'derpy', like uh, silly, absent minded, something like that, and is mostly meant in an at least semi endearing way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It’s a borrowed African word. Borrowed in the 1800s. Borrowed by Americans. Borrowed. But it eventually shifted at some point in the last century to the definition most people are familiar with, though I can’t figure out how or why.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    This would also explain why basically a shortcut in horror monster/alien/scenery/set design is to start with genitalia as a style guide, and then distort it and/or apply it to objects that do not normally come even close to that.

    Monster zombie dog?

    Make dog naked, furless, and veiny, throbbing, skin where you can see it isn't bleeding, but theres tons of blood right at the surface of the skin, also its mouth/head is now basically a vaginal opening with teeth, but uh, opening horizontally instead of vertically.

    See how easy this is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    The design of the Xenomorph from Alien is famously like that. It has feminine curves, but a phallic head. And facehugger is basically raping the victims to impregnate them. All of these design choices were intentional to evoke the disgust/fear of the audience, I remember reading about this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago*

    Half Life (2) monsters as well.

    The, uh, the gonarchs, the 'adult headcrabs' on Xen?

    Yeah, it literally just is giant walking ballsack, pretty sure the concept artist basically just says that directly in 'Raising the Bar'.

    A bunch of the planned enemy types that existed in the beta/alpha, before Valve/HL2 got hacked and they significantly shifted development... a lot of the enemy types had concepts of much more fleshy/flappy/foldy appearances, often with hair, again, like pubic hair.

    But they toned that down a lot, made them much sleeker, more 'synth' than ... i guess monstrosity.

    But but, then of course, Eli gets skull fucked to death by a giant penis tentacle, extending out from... basically a giant floating testicle sans scrotum, in Ep 2.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Interestingly, it's not about the look of genitalia specifically.

    For example, I happen to be a hetero person, yet I appreciate both genitals equally. What matters is how feminine the carrier is. I'll appreciate a nice dick on a beautiful woman, but on a man...ew. Same with vaginas - if it belongs to a woman, it can be very arousing, but you won't find trans men in my bedroom.

    It's the same genitals, but their perception is wildly different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    You don’t in fact, happen to be hetero

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    If you like dick, and you like pussy, you’re not straight. Pick one: bi/pan/queer/other

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I like women, hence, I'm hetero. Shouldn't be too hard.

    Now, you can make categories of dick lovers and vagina appreciators, but "hetero", just as "homo" and the rest, refers to gender attraction, not genitals. No need to gatekeep that.

    I have no objection being called queer, but definitionally I'm just not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    No it actually refers to sex, not gender. Gay for a man is loving dick, not loving males.

    Definitionally you aren’t hetero if you enjoy both sexual organs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (1 child)

    It’s amazing that I’ve triggered you so much you’ve made assumptions on age. It’s unfortunate your brain rot can’t accept the dictionary’s definition:

    Heterosexual: sexually or romantically attracted to people of the other sex.

    I’m truly sorry they didn’t consult your feelings when writing the definition little snowflake

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    So I went through your post history to see if you were capable of independent thought and it turns out, not really…

    Neopronouns, trains and pro Israel support with some L takes on tech makes you the most stereotypical Lemmy user I’ve encountered… no wonder you left Reddit for here. This is where all the trans autistic sysadmins who blindly support Israel congregate. Completely in your bubble and wildly drinking all the flavors of cool aid. Good for you Xir.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    Just look at the sort of pelvic accessory you’re not interested in (bi people, I’m sorry)

    Lol, I don't know whether I'm like, "I like people," because the whole 'hole is hole' thing, or the hole is a hole is wholly because of "I like people." The things I want to do with my mouth, and to all people's holes... well, whatever part is chiming in is chiming in with an entire carillon.

  • source
  • parent