http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11977121/Women-are-either-bisexual-or-gay-but-never-straight.html
Is it true?
>>27350361
Women don't define sex in the same way that men do
Men focus purely on what they are attracted to and what they will use to get an orgasm
Women think sex is more of an activity to do with people who you're comfortable with
If a man wouldn't cum, balls deep, inside of a specific group of people based on gender, then that's how you tell his sexuality
If a woman is okay with a certain type of person being present, or lying on the bed next to her, while some chad pounds her into the next decade, that's how you tell her sexuality
Sure.
Sexuality is a spectrum.
This is homosexual propaganda that is aimed to moral destroy the fabric of our society.
>>27350416
For women maybe lmao
>>27350438
Nope but believe what you want.
same for guys 2bh
It sounds like whoever wrote the article did so to justify their own life behavior.
That being said, chick on chick action is always hot as fuck.
Everyone is bi, a man who says he would turn down boipussi lies to himself and others.
I'm a girl and I'm not attracted to naked womens though. I think lesbian porn is pretty gross to be honest senpai.
>>27350510
That pic is hot senpai.
>You will never dominate a qt blonde sissy and fill his boipucci with semen until it leaks non stop.
I few years ago, I remember reading the same thing was true for guys.
100% straight males don't exist, 100% gay males do, but the vast majority of males was somewhere inbetween.
>>27350523
>I'm not attracted to naked womens
so that means...
you are attracted to me :3
post skype
>>27350523
Are you attracted to naked men then?
>>27350510
>everyone is bi
Why do asexuals exist then?
>>27350361
>Is it true?
No, it's complete horseshit. "Arousal" is incredibly difficult to define let alone isolate and you can induce arousal-like qualities in both men and women by exposing them to all kinds of different things. It has no meaningful bearing on their sexuality.
By the way, you should basically just never read newspaper articles on scientific studies because they're always wrong. If you're interested in studies then read journals proper.
>>27350403
>If a woman is okay with a certain type of person being present, or lying on the bed next to her, while some chad pounds her into the next decade, that's how you tell her sexuality
This is surprisingly plausible
>>27350361
Sexuality is partly a social construct. The more mentally instable a person is the less likely said person is to be dign and morally solid house sustaining the foundations of christianity and Lord Jesus Christ may he rest in piece. Said person is also more prone to be a excommunicated degenerate.
Nothing new here.
>>27350558
>you are attracted to me :3
Er, maybe?
>>27350562
Yeah, for the most part.
>>27350606
virgins who need an excuse
Isn't like 90% or more of the population straight?
Hey guys, a """STUDY""" found that most womyn are either gay or bisexual! Said """STUDY""" polled around 500 people but that's okay - those 500 or even 50,000 (that's an entire five zeroes!) stand for three (3) billion women on the planet!
Better post it on The Telegraph (TM)! xD
Fuck the robot, this comment is incredibly original
>>27350688
>most part
What do you dislike then?
>>27350719
It's not an excuse if they're ok with being virgin
>>27350765
Usually that's a big enough sample size to represent a larger amount of people
Look into statistics if you want to actually criticize the way science has been done for the past 100 years instead of skipping the argument part and going straight into capitalizing words because you can't actually get any attention any other way
>>27350843
500 (it was actually ~300 in the study, which is even worse) is not even remotely good enough to establish a serious confidence interval for a population of 30 million women, you pretentious faggot.
