I want you to stop pointing out " facts " that does not exist, when you don't know enought about a subject, just don't try to look smart and interesting

my dad just came out as straight to my other dad and me. the tension is pretty thick in our family right now.

And why do you believe research proving why a certain tendency is true 'does not exist'? You literally provide no counter arguments apart from giving your own close-minded beliefs, trying to be interesting.

To be fair, of all the people to go after for being stupid in this thread, I'm not sure why you picked Vis

I didn't rly expect this to take this turn, more made this thread to show people struggling with finding acceptance about certain parts of themselves that there is love, tolerance, and beauty in this world. hate isn't the message to spread, because at the end of the day you have one person to answer to, and that is yourself. if it's dangerous for you to come out as whatever you identify with, yeah don't make a martyr out of yourself, but there are people who will love you no matter what.

there's nothing wrong with using science to understand this, we use the scientific method to understand everything in our world, and nothing stomps out ignorance like love and knowledge. I think there's room for both, but let's not get distracted and start throwing punches when we're all on the same team here.

everyone of you has so much to offer this world, don't ever be ashamed of what you are.

he's probably talking about when you said the thing about younger/older sisters and then said it's just your own theory with no research

Pansexual is also a term that might apply to some people ITT (inb4 shit about being attracted to pans). It can sound a bit snowflakey but my understanding is your attraction to people isn’t predetermined by their gender or orientation etc., your attraction is determined just on how they look and who they are as a person. What they identify as gender wise or sexual orientation wise has little to no bearing on you. That is to say if you find someone attractive, you find them attractive, and that’s it, and it doesn’t necessarily make you more inclined to be attracted to other members of the same gender or sexuality because that was never part of your attraction to them to begin with.

a thread on tftv about a delicate topic rapidly devolving into literal children fighting??

THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE

i'm w blue tho. if you ever need anything from me, please know that people love and support you. tftv dm me

So your saying "your sister is almost certainly not a lesbian" because of some theory about a rare situation which is not proven and then on top of that your making your own theory which is not backed up by any knowledge apart from this article and saying "your sister is almost certainly not lesibian". Stop, your making science look stupid.

wrong thread

what thread was that supposed to go in?

I've never really seen the reason personally to call myself bi because I (currently) have only had relationships with men. Plus my preferences are like 90% men 10% women and I while I have been offered I have never pursued the 10%. So I just call myself straight, maybe I am bi by definition but it feels just... incorrect identifying as that.

Also when girls offer to kiss me I get sweaty...

what do i do if everyone thinks im gay but im not

similar position, im just personally not bothered about labels. eat pussy and suck dick and if i end up wanting a relationship with a guy i can have that conversation then. personally i dont particularly care if my family know or not, friends usually get told tho

literally who cares

no thanks

"literally who cares" just translates to "i don't care and i want everyone to know"

lol who cares

I'm bi/pan/whatever the fuck you wanna call it.

this is what he's referencing
http://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/302
not outright wrong, but the entire post is just... bad
My biggest critique of this study is there's not a particular reason that male neuronal surface proteins would be exposed to the mother's immune system to
a. trigger initial immunity
b. trigger B-cell activation during the second pregnancy

further:

"The X-linked homolog, NLGN4X, might also play a role in the formation of sexual/romantic attractions, and antibodies raised by NLGN4Y might alter sexual brain development by cross-reacting with fetal NLGN4X, given its similarity to NLGN4Y"

would indicate the mother should face a fair chance of clonal deletion or anergy for any immune cells actually capable of targeting the gene, considering the epitopes are probably similar between the two

so idk man, p sus article imo

to add: patrilineal-vs-matronal-immunological determinism for neuronal development would also mean women who are not analogous to their mother's NGLN4X allele would suffer similar (though reduced) effects, depending on barr bodies etc

FWIW: genetics, devbio, & immunology arent my interests, but I'm kinda familiar enough to be sus on that article

Gender ratios are a normal thing. I'm like 80-90% straight myself, but it's equally valid as a 50/50 ratio.

The science behind it might be different, who knows, but it doesn't deny the fact that such tendency exists.

just stop and let people use this thread to talk about their sexualities

i am homo sapien

.

Don't even begin arguments in which you are mentally restricted to defend your point

.

Its ok to be gay but dont fuck with them drugs - allu

regret replying as well now