/ot/ - Off-topic

Pretty sure that's normal so no.

>>27242
you aren't attracted to the masculinity of the femboy. it's the curvature of the limbs that appeals, the dress, the mannerisms. that's why seeing some smooth curvaceous rocks might arouse you somewhat. that's not you wanting to fuck some rocks, it's the curves activating a primal instinct for sex. so no, not gay

but also does it matter? labels are bourgeois anyway, used to divide and categorize. fuck who you want to fuck. it's a free country

>>27242
depends, did you say no homo?

>>27242
yes

>>27242
A person who goes around calling themselves a femboy generally shouldn't be trusted. Be cautious.

These labels make no sense and are made up nonsense. There is no point picking one to identify with. You will waste life and mental energy on it. There is no such thing as sexual orientation, besides some obscure fetishes and mental disorders

A man who hates women's bodies and likes children is a mental patient, but a man who hates women's bodies and only likes men is considered valid. If a person seems to like members of both sexes he is considered bi, but the vast majority of people don't think this is real. What if a person likes dickgirls and loves boobs? Is he gay or what? What if a person likes feminine features regardless of gender? What does that make him? Its all bullshit lies. They keep minting new retarded labels to make up for the shortfall, which is how we get pansexual, metrosexual, demisexual and lizardsexual or whatever's next. People can't admit these categories make no sense.

>>27250
>fuck who you want to fuck. it's a free country
American mind rot but you are right about bourgeois label bullshit.

Would you still have feelings for him when he gets old and masculine looking?

>>27267
>A man who hates women's bodies and likes children is a mental patient
Yes they are. Children don't feel pleasure from sex, only pain. To equate that with homosexuality is ridiculous because while, yes, homosexuality may be a mental deviation/possibly mental ailment, at the end of the day two consenting adults who are homosexual and having sex enjoy it, understand the reprecussions (ie relationship wise), and are mentally mature enough to have sex in a mentally safe way. Even children going through puberty who might enjoy sex can have serious mental reprecussions being exposed to a power dynamic like that from an adult before they are 18.

>Its all bullshit lies. They keep minting new retarded labels to make up for the shortfall, which is how we get pansexual, metrosexual, demisexual and lizardsexual or whatever's next. People can't admit these categories make no sense.
Homosexuality means same sex attraction. Bisexuality means both same sex and opposite sex attraction. Seems simple enough to me, what's not to understand? Even sexuality like pansexual is relatively simple: basically bisexual but accounting for those outside gender norms and identity. Not really that hard and a google search is right away to explain.

This post reads off as a weird attempt to normalize pedophilia (bad) and discredit completely valid displays of sexuality (also bad). Believe it or not, ubuunon, there is a line in the sand of what's considered acceptable and what's considered abhorrent. It's called basic morality and is something all good communities should have

yes, and thats ok.

>>27287
I'm not trying to justify kiddie rape or lolicons wanting to sex literal children. In our liberal capitalist dystopia we've inherited a bunch of ideas about sexuality that don't make sense and fall apart when you scrutinize them. The idea people have stable and consistent sexual orientations based on what sex they are attrcated to does not make sense. "Attraction" is a vague concept. The distinction between "sex" and "gender" is never clarified. The majority of people's sexual preferences are pretty fluid and dynamic and can't be pigeonholed into neat categories designed to police our behavior.

>Its okay if its between consenting adults
This is a legal principal but its taken as a moral standard. People assume that because its legal it is therefore okay and good and its become a license for bad behavior, selfishness etc. "I am allowed to do this and you have no right to judge me" bullshit. Just because something is legal does not make it okay. This dangerous individualism and subjectivism is destroying society, and not just in the realm of sex and relationships but just in general.

>>27302
there's nothing wrong with being a loli or shotacon and FWIW most lolicons stick with 2d and hardly qualify as paedos.
again being a paedo is ok, cause paedo doesnt = child molester.
most child molesters arent even paedos and are instead situational rapists not preferential.

>>27306
I guess.. I mean in Japan lolicon/shotacon are just their words for pedo, its only in English do people distinguish lolicons from pedos. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in having feelings or fantasies but actually having sex with a child is wrong and you're right about most child rapes being crimes of opportunity.

>>27306
Indulging in your fantasies might make them easier to self-justify. This was me with femboy furry shit porn. Obviously that's not problematic in the same way that pedo is, but I'm still going to put this case forward as an allegorical kind of phenomenon.

>>27242
no, you're gay if you're a guy.

>>27310
Anon, did you even read what you wrote? Because your post directly contradicts what your point seems to be.
Unless you went and abused an animal because you like furry femboys, you yourself are proof there's nothing inherently wrong with having a fetish for fictional shit.

Does liking Gigi Murin make me gay as heck?

>>27398
u woman? then yes but who cares go eat pussy