/kind/ - Random Acts of Kindness

Maybe you can tell me which one I should check in the poll?

Any masculine features is a huge turn-off for me, but I really like futanari, dickgirls, traps, even real traps with a real dick. I mostly prefer drawn dicks and traps to 100% girls. I like 3d traps on pictures, but I'm aware the photos are manipulated to hide their masculine features so I think I can safely say I'd never get aroused by a man.

>>28390

That's up to you, friend. Nobody else can tell you what you are.

although you sound bi to me

>>28387

Human sexuality is complicated.

I'm really only into lolis and certain objects, so I checked "anything else".

>>28390

I second this guy. I mean I'd say bi but that's sort of dishonest for how little I care for boys. I'm screwey through so whatever.

In any case more options would give you more relevant answers I should think (unless you just wanna have fun thinking of this as a gay little hugbox). On one last note you shill that board too much (fairly enough assuming you're every instance I've seen it).

>>28446

Because human sexuality encompasses a lot more than just what genitalia your partner has. If you just want a label of which genitalia I prefer, I'd have to go with "hand".

>>28446

> it does not change the fact that men cannot have babies with men.

There are women who can't have babies, too. And men who can't have babies with women.

>>28457

>And if you're attracted to something for qualities that don't pertain to that thing being male, female or even human?

Wouldn't that just be asexual? Even if it's an animal, there is only one human involved. As I understand it, asexuality is characterized not be a lack of sex drive (your hormones take care of that) but a lack of attraction.

>>28461

>There are women who can't have babies, too. And men who can't have babies with women.

Yes, but these are people with physical or hereditary disabilities or simply post-menopausal women. In other words, people who used to, or should have been able to reproduce if not for their circumstances.

>>28464

Being asexual is having a complete lack of attraction.

>>28465

>Being asexual is having a complete lack of attraction.

I see no reason why being attracted to drawings, pictures, animals or gas pedals should count towards a sexuality.

Although asexual people can form bonds with people and even fuck them to satisfy their and their partner's hormonal needs. Which leads me to wonder whether asexuals exist at all.

>>28469

>I see no reason why being attracted to drawings, pictures, animals or gas pedals should count towards a sexuality.

Essentially if we dilute being asexual to meaning "not being attracted to humans" it loses the meaning it initially had.

If I claim to be asexual after that connotation is attached to it instead of people assuming I have no desire to put my penis in them, and that alone, they'll assume I want to fuck dogs or some shit.

Or the alternate effect could be had, and, if I'm interested in sticking my dick inside of lightbulbs, and I tell people I'm asexual, instead of getting that meaning, they'll assume I'm not attracted to anything at all, the original meaning.

Ultimately there's no reason to repurpose a word that already has a meaning into something that it does not mean, especially since adding those meanings drastically alters the word. It just makes language more obtuse and it could end up creating awkward situations when there's absolutely no need for them to exist.

Is it too difficult to just create a new word?

>>28469

You keep dancing around the actual concept for some reason.

-asexual people do not feel sexual attraction, however they still feel love and affection (and so yes, would wish to do something to satisfy their partner's needs and make them feel good)

-sexual attraction to airplanes, animals, whatever the hell is still a sexual attraction even if it serves no reproductive purpose. The core concept is someone getting off (which, like, another species might too).

Also as a side note the ability to have sex with something is irrelevant to the attraction.

>>28474

>sexual attraction to airplanes, animals, whatever the hell is still a sexual attraction even if it serves no reproductive purpose. The core concept is someone getting off

But it isn't? The core concept is SEXUAL attraction. If you only want to masturbate, or make love to mayonnaise etc, then you are not a sexual entity.

>asexual people do not feel sexual attraction, however they still feel love and affection

Unless you are an exceptional mutant, you feel sexual arousal. Is that love, or sexual attraction?

>>28472

>Yes, but that's the problem with the original meaning: it is not biologically realistic.

>We are born with an imperative to reproduce, to touch our genitals to something that makes us feel good, essentially. Usually the opposite sex, so that we may make babies and continue the species.

Is it impossible to consider that one would not have these desires?

Even if there is not a single human alive now that is entirely asexual, the term still has merit, at least in fiction. There are plenty of existent words to describe unrealistic concepts. Should we attribute meanings to words like "dragon" that it previously did not have in an effort to make it more useful? Why can these words not simply exist to describe the idea based on it?

An asexual is someone who does not feel sexual attraction. It's likely there are birth defects or something of that sort that can cause this, and, even if theres not anything like that in existence, the term can still be applied to fiction, which means it still has uses.

Is /kind/ full of /cuteboys/?

No.

I maybe skinny and long hair guy and like cute girls, but that doesn't mean I'm into trap and cuteboy stuff. Futa is an abomination of girls.

Suprisingly less /cuteboys/ than I previously thought.

Well, at least there's me.

>>28505

I'm here too, friend.

>>28475

I think you're oversimplifying things. I'm not going to pretend to have the answers for you but I believe things go wrong in ways we can't define. I mean what's even the point of homosexuality? People have gone back and forth with that a million times but there isn't a definitive answer. Someone getting no sexual gratification or sexual attraction to floor tiles and earth fissures makes as much sense to me towards the reproduction of our species as same gender relations (all due respect to gay couples). We already have complex emotions and crap, it's not unprecedented to think there's different sides to sexuality that fail to cooperate for whatever reason. -and so I say gender preference, identity, sexual gratification, liking underage people, liking animals, liking absolute nonsense, ect. It's all there and doesn't act in a uniform way clearly.

So many homos…

I'm starting to wonder if the only reason /kind/ is full of them is because bullying isn't allowed here.

>>28516

Nah it's 'cause we make for better people

>>28516

Homosexuals are only 7%, what do you mean?

>>28518

You do have a quality to induce vomit.

>>28519

Too many.

>>28516

I mean, this whole board is largely a big cutesy circle-jerk, which it pretty gay in itself. It's also true that depression is more common among homosexuals, so maybe this sort of thing appeals to them us more.

>>28519

He was probably including bisexuals when he said that, since bisexuals are homosexual by definition.

>>28521

>He was probably including bisexuals when he said that, since bisexuals are homosexual by definition.

It's a bit weird to do that though. If I said "there's a lot of heterosexuals here" one wouldn't think I'm talking about bisexuals also.

>>28520

>Too many.

It's about 2x the percentage of most of the US

>>28522

>If I said "there's a lot of heterosexuals here" one wouldn't think I'm talking about bisexuals also.

I would, but I guess that's just me.

>>28520

>You do have a quality to induce vomit.

It's gay to be this /unkind/ you know

>>28518

Gay shitters or not there's nothing superior about the people on this board.

>>28516

Being /kind/ is cute.

And the best kind of cute is /kind/.

Since I am a huge friendgot and always enjoyed being nice and helpful.

And if you want a more general perspective, kindness is generally considered unmanly, so it would only makes sense for gay people to readily show it. If anything I'm surprised by how few homos we have.

I expected anywhere from 20 to 50%.

>>28544

>*helpful, it only made sense.

>more readily show it

Why are cellphones so terrible?

>>28546

Warning: incoming normie:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/autocorrect

>>28544

-but my anime seem to say that being emotionally repressed and spiteful is the cutest. Maybe we just aren't cut out to be cute…

>>28520

I didn't know gay people were so prone to bulimia.

Is it the anti-depressants from being bullied that make them have that? ;_;

>>28574

I want to say I get your joke but that chain of effects makes no sense.