why is lesbianism much less common in the historical record than male homosexuality
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
why is lesbianism much less common in the historical record than male homosexuality
Cuz lesbians are hot so nobody gave a shit what they did, unlike gays who are disgusting.
>lesbian
that is just 2 females jerking off and kissing
no actual sex
FPBP
They named a whole Greek island after lesbians, what more do you want
Lesbos means forested/woody. lesbian is just derived from that due to the legend. They didn't name it after homosexual women.
homosexualry only started happening when the Soviet Union began working with Satan to create the first degenerate bomb. The bomb was dropped stealthily across America in order to create homosexuals, those who did not trust God fully were raped by Satan and turned into the first homosexuals. God in turn to stop this satanic overtaking of America created AIDS to destroy the homosexuals at their core.
>but muh Greeks
Historical vision by homosexuals and sodomites trying to pretend homosexualry existed before the degenerate bombs were dropped across America.
The homosexuals will not stop until they out breed us or turn us all into Satan worshippers.
Stalin banned gays though
Within his own country, yes. But he realized the potential that homosexualry had for weakening his enemies
So stalin made a satanic pact after he died?
that is so fricking moronic
>until they out breed
How?
uh. pretty sure it was the israelites.
plus, everyone - even stalin - is into russian lesbians.
What the hell did I read?
>>>/x/
Take your meds
Touch grass
there's like six contradictions in this post
Is this what schizophrenia looks like?
because nobody cares about women
Nobody cared about what women did for all of human history until like the 16th century
This.
>Nobody cared about what women did for all of human history until like the 20th century
FIFY
I still don’t care what women do
Male Homosexuals don’t actually exist either. Historically, frickin one of your bros was just good fun and you’d go home to your wife at the end of the day. Anyone that just fricked dudes was, historically, frowned upon.
This has never, ever been true.
Roman bathhouse graffiti specifically made fun of homos and pedos
>See this graffiti making fun of gay dudes?
>And this one that says so-and-so has sex with men as a personal insult?
>And these laws about killing or banishing them?
>Clearly everyone in antiquity was cool with gay sex
Without looking up specifics it's also likely there isn't nearly as much of it as you think. For all the people that say Greece was super duper uber gay paradise, and here are all these paintings and ect of gay sex... We've found like less than 40. And we are fairly certain some are forgeries.
Most of the shit put out there as examples of Greek pro-gay pottery are either (much) later 'reproductions' or misrepresented. Like two nude men wrestling (Greeks loved to wrestle, and they did so nude) being presented as two men having sex.
The Romans didn’t think about gay shit in the way we do now. Basically, being a top was cool and showed how manly you were, while being a bottom was disgraceful if you weren’t a slave.
Huge oversimplification that is exactly what the original guy was talking about. It was definitely not as bad being a top but it absolutely wasn't "cool", it was fricking gay, even back then, and shameful for somebody to do it.
it wasn't really *that* shameful. fricking slave boys wasn't going to ruin anyone's reputation.
Only because they were slaves and those who did it were wealthy enough to own slaves which therefore implies that they had a decent amount of material wealth
This is very true
>frickin one of your bros was just good fun
I keep telling my straight friends this in hope they'll understand
maybe if your homosexuality was "I just like ass" and not
>gay pride
>child rape
>trannies
>blmcuck
>feminine handmovements
>centered around anti-masculinity
your friends wouldnt treat you like the freak you are.
But anon, my straight friends like me, they even let me massage their feet and we always hug each other.
The only thing in that list that fits me is gay pride anyway.
I always force my straight bros to go to pride with me and they only comply because I introduce them to a bunch of bi girls. Damned breeders. What's the point of a straight bro if we can't do it like pic related
Anal sex is so gross
I would be down to give handjobs or blowjobs but anal? yuck
On the other hand eating out a woman's ass is like my biggest fantasy so maybe I am a tad hypocritical
Look how awkward that looks. Not true love.
>Look how awkward that looks.
It doesn't.
It does, almost looks like a stock photo. Essentially two strangers kissing.
This
I will later this week create the same thread but with a OP with JAV girls making out.
based
Men are coomers who can and will get off to pretty much anything with enough distortion of the psyche. Lesbians are more like female support groups gone too far.
Women have objectively a far higher libido than men though.
That would make no sense. Sperm are cheap, eggs are expensive. Men have more to gain from multiple partners.
sex was always about who fricks and who gets fricked. if you told any man from any period before 1800s that you had sex and said sex was only a handjob you would get laughed at
Because the whole ordeal wasn't as humiliating for women as it was/is for men.
Because lesbianism amounts to female grooming. And women are objectively more beautiful than men. Hetero women appreciate the beauty of other women and have been scientifically proven to stare at other women's bodies more than men. 95% of so-called lesbians are actually chadsexuals. It's a phase for them, unlike male homosexuals who seem doomed to lust after wiener forever.
>have been scientifically proven to stare at other women's bodies more than men
it's jealousy
Partly, yes, but partly genuine admiration. They like the look of other women. They like women's curves. Remember that men and women have sucked from their mother's breasts.
Femininity is the basis for beauty. What makes men appealing is functionality. Nobody respects a pretty boy except for deranged homos and 14 year old girls. Women are objectively more beautiful than men and this is what makes their lesbianism less repulsive to society.
>Women are objectively more beautiful than men
I am not certain this has been the accepted view through all ages
Who? Some pedo Gayreeks that wanted young boys to look like girls? Proves my point again. Also, sticking your dick in a poo hole is disgusting.
But female beauty also comes from functionality.
But how anon? If anything male beauty is more functional, is the pinnacle of female beauty or the pinnacle of male beauty more likely to help you survive in nature.
There is no point in surviving anything without reproducing, since the goal of survival is to reproduce your genes.
Female roundess serves a function.
A woman cannot be beautiful without having wide hips, that give her a round shape. Since wider hips means wider birth canal and more successful pregnancy chance.
Female ass is round, as opposed to the male one, because of this wide birth canal and her shape of the hips. Men like big round assess because it means the mother is physically healthy and can give birth properly.
Big breasts because they produce milk and so on.
Even tho two breasts one bigger and the other smaller, can produce the same amount of milk overal.
Its just a good trait males judge the females on.
Kys coomer. Female curves jelly bodies ugly for me as heterosexual female.
Homosexuality isn't real
This must be the coomer thread on IQfy. I'll take it.
Because nobody gave a frick about what women did. Let alone enough to write it down.
Only correct post itt. It's like asking why nobody cares why dogs hump the couch. Nobody cares
Because its a male fantasy
Because homosexuals put their dicks in eachother's shitters. Any society with even the bare minimum aversion to shit would find it disgusting.
3 weeks into the Medieval Russia course, my professor asked "prove only using sources from the coursework up to this point that women existed in medieval Russia."
You couldn't do it. This rhetorical question was the setup for the earliest record of medieval Russian women; a german diplomats essay about the traditionalist ways highborn women were treated in Russia.
I bet a mathematician could do it.
>some Russian existed
>his son existed
>the most common fashion for a son to exist is that he had a mother who fricked his dad
>therefore probability is high that women existed
Everyone was quick to make the logic argument, but they couldn't back up their claims with sources.
This is why humanities will never be taken seriously.
>there was a famine in current year -1000 in the city of shitholesville
>PROVE IT!
>our only chronicler of the time says many people starved to death
>HE DOESN'T MENTION A FAMINE! HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY DIDN'T ALL JUST STOP EATING!? NO SOURCE= DIDN'T HAPPEN!
... unless Bayes' Theorem doesn't count as "coursework" up to this point, in which case I would invite the professor to frick himself.
Without logic and mathematics, there is nothing.
You would think at some point Prince So and So would marry Princess Such and Such to secure peace between two kingdoms
Women are less frequent in the historical record than men are.
In real life they're never pretty. Always short obese with butter face green hair and tattoos.
This is just personal anecdotes but every middle-aged lesbian couple I know has sons. No daughters, just sons. Dunno if it's just by chance but it's an odd pattern I've noticed.
Maybe they groom these sons? Too scared of real adult men instead of boys.
Lesbians aren't actually homosexuals, but are men haters. They have sons to destroy them.
untrue in my own personal experience
There is no such thing as "lesbian sex" when sex, by definition, involves the penis inserted into a hole.
Because women in general are minimised in historical accounts
less seething because the spite bloc doesn't take women seriously
women were irrelevant
Lesbians are pretty harmless as long as the woman accepts/is coerced to getting knocked up
all women are lesbians, ergo all women are hellbound subhuman, heathens heil odin 1488
because it is even less natural than male homosexuality
Lesbians don't really exist. All women will kiss another girl. It doesn't mean anything for them.
gay
lesbians are fun to jerk off to but thinking they should be treated anything more than objects is laughable.
there are better ways of coming out of the closet
They existed in Chinese record a lot.
because pussies were frickin nasty until around 1992.
Typically speaking, women really didn't get a choice in whether they were going to marry a man or not.
Lesbian sex was not considered real sex by most cultures. Women most often had their space with other women which was the household, but that life was kind of left outisde the mens perihery of vision until women got married. Just because it wasn't written down it doesn't mean it did not exist as much as male homosexuality.
You will never be a woman.
Because nobody gives s frick about women.
Because there no such thing as homosexual female
because lesbians can't frick, they don't have a penis
Because wanting to play with boobs and pussies is totally normal and understandable but wanting anything at all to do with a disgusting hairy man ass is incomprehensible so they commented on it.
I really miss the 90's when sexy lesbians were everywhere in mainstream media tbh
women had less freedom to be gay. women were often married off young and confined to the home.
Because most think women performing lesbian acts is hot. I don't say men find lesbians hot because the pics in this thread are cherrypicked. IRL 90% of lesbians are fat and ugly ogres.
Because women are less common in the historical record than men.
women do not have as varied behaviors as males do and their mutations are much less damaging than males, they have some inborn genetic safeguard.
Probably due to them being more critical to the next generation than men, you can have plenty of men and one man can father an entire tribe, while if even a third of your women are hindered in some way your tribe can go extinct.
Naturally sexual aberrance will be rarer among females due to their genetic strength.
It is prominent now more due to social engineering, but even now its still rarer than male homosex.
homosex is also a possible byproduct of molestation and females are less likely to be molested by the same sex.
People had better things to do then see whatever the frick women were up to. Most people accepted that whatever women do is typically random, unreasonable, and of little consequence. Certainly not worth writing down.
If a woman wants to be hyper-indulgent in sexual pleasure she can take her pick of men.
Women are the gate keepers of sex, so if a man wants to be hyper-indulgent in sexual pleasure he must look for other avenues besides women