People who like futa on male are gay?

[Buddawg]

Hmmm....

You said....



SO my assumption is that you already know of these studies that exist. Wait, I thought you already knew about these studies. Why did you need to do a Google search? And then...of your great Googling skills, only to provide...this....



The above is not a study. It is a Wikipedia article, that is defining what Cisgender means. 1) It is not a study or anything close to one 2) There is nothing there that backs up your premise of "...dominantly straight males who enjoy depictions of futa and transgendered..." as the statement is referring to Cisgender which describes Gender identity. Are you saying Gender Identity directly corresponds to sexual preference? Gay, Straight, or otherwise?



This is not even a study....it is an article from 2016, that..backs up some of what you are saying, but barely. First off the statement off the back is based on stats from an single paid adult site, Adult empire. Are you saying that we should generalize that statement across all areas based on a single paid site? Are those numbers still the same now almost 10 years later? What is the breakdown between Gay Men vs Hetero Men? Is it 60/40, 70/30. 80/20? Redtube said the majority of trans searchs where done by men in 2013. Ok....that's a long time ago, but should we be generalizing based on a single site? Do we know if those men were gay or straight?

The thing is simple....you basically provided an Wiki article and a news article (that has been removed from the site and is no longer available) top prove your point. Studies? Come on now...you can find anything on the internet to prove your point. Let's not act like there is academic research and scholarly articles on this topic which conducted unbias studies.

"Studies"

Now read carefully my FIRST sentence in that post.
This is just a random search done in seconds.
All of them are based on studies.
Wikipedia links for those are found at bottom of the page.
The article is substained from studies as well. Statistical research.
Second line is just a copy from an actual research, because I cannot be arsed to find any more relevant information.

In my post prior I explained the studies I read are from a former debate about this topic, on this very forum.... But it wasnt fucking yesterday. So I DO NOT HAVE a link to the exact ones I read. Why I did NOT want to provide links.
Your deconstruction without yourself providing any shred of evidence, source or anything at all... is why asking for sources as a first getgo always derails a debate. You do not have any intend to debate the topic, you just wanna demolish your opponent regardless of any evidence he finds.
Youre a troll.

Breakdown of gay vs straight men... is much much nearer 10% of the population mate. Its roughly 7.1%.

 

[HDiddy]

A counter claim would work like this "no its not, its...."
And NO... when you postulate a claim, you do NOT HAVE to prove it. Its an absolutely mess of a shitshow troll way to think.
A claim is NOT a fact.
Regardless of that breach of standard debate to ask for sources as the first thing. Its always and every single time, if its the first that is asked, never read. Its a way to ignore any and all arguments (like the trolling it is) to ask for source on a claim, without taking part in any debate. Its literally cutting out the fucking debate, because if there is decent sourcing the entire debate is a non-issue.
So yes... its never a must to substain a claim with information. Its a fecking claim.
Fuck how US legal system works, this is a debate not a court.
Its impolite as fuck to ask for source in a debate without parttaking in the debate.

Regardless about the weird way you choose to debate....I already responded to all your "claims"

 

[HDiddy]

Now read carefully my FIRST sentence in that post.
This is just a random search done in seconds.
All of them are based on studies.
Wikipedia links for those are found at bottom of the page.
The article is substained from studies as well. Statistical research.
Second line is just a copy from an actual research, because I cannot be arsed to find any more relevant information.

In my post prior I explained the studies I read are from a former debate about this topic, on this very forum.... But it wasnt fucking yesterday. So I DO NOT HAVE a link to the exact ones I read. Why I did NOT want to provide links.
Your deconstruction without yourself providing any shred of evidence, source or anything at all... is why asking for sources as a first getgo always derails a debate. You do not have any intend to debate the topic, you just wanna demolish your opponent regardless of any evidence he finds.
Youre a troll.

Breakdown of gay vs straight men... is much much nearer 10% of the population mate. Its roughly 7.1%.

None of them are based on studies, unless your defining a study in a very loose sense. Wikipedia has a lot of link at the bottom of the page. I am not about to go through each of them to search for something you are the one saying exist. Point it out and lets go from there.

What statistical research in the Wikipedia article is backing up your claim? I don't see it at all...sure there is research there, but nothing that has to do with what you are claiming.

If you read studies from prior debate on this topic they should be readily available. Point them out, prove your point, make all us look like dumbos. However you have not done this...you are telling me to go search for things on Google. A search you did yourself and came up with absolutely nothing to back up your claim. A search that if anyone did would come up with random websites and reddit articles.

I do not need to provide any evidence because I am not claiming anything outside of my own opinions. Remember you are the one that claimed "Studies" as in more than one backs up the claim you are making. However when asked for a source...you punt, throwing a bunch of red herrings and ad hominem attacks against me simply because I asked you to provide one of those so called studies.

The only person here not trying to debate is yourself...you could have cleared this up a long time ago by just dropping a study in the link....but no he we are....lol

 

[Buddawg]

Regardless about the weird way you choose to debate....I already responded to all your "claims"

Now lets be real, you fell right into the troll part of all this "source" thing.
You have so far done nothing to parttake in the discussion. No opinion, no claim, no source.
Your entire entryis "whats your source" then dismantle any source given, even when notified they are not THE sources, just random fast searches.
You never had any intentions to debate, only to do that.

You have equated that to being a debate, even though its absolutely one sided. Like it is EVERY SINGLE TIME the first thing the opponent does is asking for source.

Youre making a strawmans argument out of the discussion about the source. Providing nothing, adding nothing. But derailing it into a source discussion that is pretty stupid to begin with.
I am NOT going to do your research for you. And its NEVER on my requirements to provide a source when you dont parttake in the discussion. So unless you make a claim and provide proof of your claim. It ends here. With you being a troll and nothing else.

 

[HDiddy]

Now lets be real, you fell right into the troll part of all this "source" thing.
You have so far done nothing to parttake in the discussion. No opinion, no claim, no source.
Your entire entryis "whats your source" then dismantle any source given, even when notified they are not THE sources, just random fast searches.
You never had any intentions to debate, only to do that.

Seriously? Come on dude....I responded to what you provided as studies, why are you still on this whole source thing? I stated my opinion on the matter earlier on in the thread. Which mostly got buried by non-sequitur spin off debates like this. I never had the intention to debate? Really? So I just spent time reading and responding to the sources you provided to troll you? Come one dude..your not that important.

You keep on saying dismantle any source given.....uhhhh that is the whole underlying point of a debate. Good sources are hard to refute. Bad sources can easily be torn apart, and the internet is a treasure trove of bad sources. Simple as that.

You have equated that to being a debate, even though its absolutely one sided. Like it is EVERY SINGLE TIME the first thing the opponent does is asking for source.

People ask for sources when random characters on the internet (like yourself) pop up with some generalized claim or theory just to prove what ever point they are trying to make. It is one of the biggest fallacies around, "Appeal to ignorance" look it up since you seem to be the expert here on debating.

Youre making a strawmans argument out of the discussion about the source. Providing nothing, adding nothing. But derailing it into a source discussion that is pretty stupid to begin with.
I am NOT going to do your research for you. And its NEVER on my requirements to provide a source when you dont parttake in the discussion. So unless you make a claim and provide proof of your claim. It ends here. With you being a troll and nothing else.

I am making strawman arguments? Seriously? The discussion here is about if people who like futa or gay. You made a claim basically saying "no" because studies show straight guys like trans porn. I asked you to provide those studies. Did I ask you to provide sources about how to debate? No. You took it there, instead of providing sources you continued on this whole diatribe about why am I askiong your for a source. Come on dude...strawman argument...try again.

I am not asking you to do research for me, my guy. If you are trying to discuss something and you throw something out there pertinent to the discusison with little details most people are going to ask you for more details. The fact that you cannot tells me everything. It tells me that what you said about studies...was made up bullshit in your head. There are no studies, you just said to make your point sound more credible.

I don't need to make a claim. I stated my opinion in this very thread. If you missed it, that is not my problem. As to your point if you are going to enter a discusison and start accusing people of trolling you could at least verify what they have said in that discussion.

 

[HDiddy]

SO to put this to bed and bring this back to topic....

Most of the scholarly research you will find will does not break down sexual orientation as Gay or Straight. It is more of a scale, Ritch C. Savin-Williams seems to be the one everyone cites in this space and claims that sexual orientation is more of overlapping scales: Exclusively Straight, Straight, Mostly Straight, Bisexual Straight, Bisexual, Bisexual Gay, Mostly Gay, and Exclusively Gay.

In regard to this concept of Futanari and if you like are you "Gay" is more of how gay or not gay are you? In this regard one would focus on sexual orientation indicators for genital contact.



What you find is below....



Savin states.....



They key point here...is that there is a correlation among other things from same sex genital contact to degree of gayness. So while unless you are exclusively straight...if you like dick on dick action (Futa or otherwise)....one would argue you are not exclusively straight.

There is really nothing out there on Futa and sexual preferences so you need to draw conclusions based on the research that has been conducted regarding sexuality and orientation. Specifically the research that calls out genital contact as not all do.

The articles I cited here are:

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Icarus Media]

HDiddy is a bisexual 56 year old with a peg leg who frequents Thai Ladyboy bars.

Spoiler: Source For Claim.

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[HDiddy]

And Icarus is a 90 year old pedophile....

 

[Icarus Media]

And Icarus is a 90 year old pedophile....

You're not nice.

 

[HDiddy]

You're not nice.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

 

[Icarus Media]

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I can, can you take it?

 

[Insomnimaniac Games]

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Yeah, your joke wasn't even close to equal and you kinda just look like a jackass.

 

[Jaike]

And Icarus is a 90 year old pedophile....

A 90 year old LOLI VAMPIRE pedophile?

 

[Icarus Media]

A 90 year old LOLI VAMPIRE pedophile?

You have some strange thoughts about me you know...

 

[HDiddy]

Yeah, your joke wasn't even close to equal and you kinda just look like a jackass.

It is what it is...like I said, people should not dish random off topic commentary if they are afraid of what they are going to get back. Nothing ever gets dished back "equally"

So as the saying goes...

Don't start no shit, won't be no shit.

 

[HDiddy]

You have some strange thoughts about me you know...

Not really, simply don't find your jokes all that amusing. No offense.

 

[Icarus Media]

Not really, simply don't find your jokes all that amusing. No offense.

That wasn't even a reply to you you know.

 

[HDiddy]

That wasn't even a reply to you you know.

Ahh my bad....

I am just typing away over here.

 

[Icarus Media]

It is what it is...like I said, people should not dish random off topic commentary if their afraid what their going to get back. Nothing ever gets dished back "equally"

So as the saying goes...

Don't start no shit, won't be no shit.

Yeah but you don't go from casual back and forth joking banter to calling someone a pedophile straight out the gate. It's like someone at the office saying "Getting a bit porky, were you late because you were at Mcdonalds?" and the person replying with "I hope your mother and daughter get raped and I get to see the blood flow from their necks as I slowly slice them and hear the voices slowly echo into the void and I get to watch the life go out their eyes into the cold grey of nothingness.", I'm not saying that's equivalent, because I don't want the false equivalency or strawman argument. It's that 'WOAH!!!' moment I'm referencing, that skipped so many levels from casual banter into a level that shouldn't be really crossed ever part moment.

I can take banter and give it to and fro but you kinda have to fire back within 1 level below or above or even the same. Even a bomb to end the argument shouldn't be too over the top. For example irl, when I was leaving the office one of my coworkers said "Yay he's going!" as I was signing the in and out book. So I said "Why are you nasty to me when I think of you as an inspiration?" He said "I'M an inspiration?" I replied "Yeah...for birth control." The other two had an oof moment and then laughed, so I think I got the level just right there. Yours wasn't really. BUT acknowledging mistakes and learning from them is how we grow.

 

[♍VoidTraveler]

"I hope your mother and daughter get raped and I get to see the blood flow from their necks as I slowly slice them and hear the voices slowly echo into the void and I get to watch the life go out their eyes into the cold grey of nothingness."

.... Should i start worrying about you?