How come sometimes when I'm eating a sausage there will be hard bits?

>>woah, muscles. that's not very feminine.

Yes and i suppose females have hearts, and men have hearts, so having a heart is not feminine anymore.

Restricting the options fallacy.

Just because we have sex doesn't mean that's all we're allowed to do from now on

>I don't want to be called gay so everything is a fallacy. That'll stop people from pointing out the fact that I'm gay.

>not cuddling with your gf and sucking on her tits while she wanks you and whispers sweet nothings to you

PLEB TIER

If you liked feminine men, would that make you straight?

Not really the same thing. The classical "beauty" female form is characterized by the lack of muscles. Muscles are not unfeminine because men also have them. They're unfeminine because the classical ideal of beauty dictates that women NOT have them.

...but of course that's only a generalization. Many people are attracted to muscular women, and many people are not attracted to muscular men.

only if they had a feminine penis

>doesnt know fallacies.

Your right, everyone should want to be called gay

Especially at whatever time it best suits the bias of a gay.

>The classical "beauty" female form is characterized by the lack of muscles.

For you.

>They're unfeminine because the classical ideal of beauty dictates that women NOT have them.

Wow that stone looks very wooden.
Wow that Nazi looks very Liberal.
Wow that diamond looks very ruby.
Wow that woman looks very man.

>For you.
No, I'm gay actually. I clearly stated "classical" view, not MY view.

I'm not even sure what the later part of your post is supposed to mean.

the classical view is not specifically about the absence of muscles. at least not in the sense that the less muscle the more attractive they are. it's more about bone structure and fat distribution. i mean, assuming we agree on what the 'classical view' is.

>I'm not even sure what the later part of your post is supposed to mean.

Clearly.

So is anybody going to answer op question or we are just going to talk about muscle girls

>the classical view is not specifically about the absence of muscles

Sure, I agree. The muscles were just one part of it. Others would be large breasts, distinct hips, blush on the cheeks, long legs, etc. But even that changes from time to time as well as from country to country.

Ever see those articles in which they submit the same photo of a woman (or man) to people in different countries, then ask them to photoshop them to suit their ideal, then compare results between different cultures? Or even compare paintings from hundreds of years ago with today? A lot of women depicted in paintings from the past would end up being fat-shamed today.

Isn't the answer obvious: that somehow a small bit of bone, gristle, or maybe a hard plant stem made it through the grinder and into the sausage? What's there to discuss?

To put this simply for you... and your bias.

Muscles equal health. Not gender.

No matter how much muscle you put on, you can never change an XX chromasome into an XY chromasome.

Likewise, being thin and... .... .smooth, can never make a man into woman.

This is the chromosomal devide. There is no spectrum. There is only chromasomes.

Obviously the ingredient in your sausages is.

Gay bias.

This is not about gender, it's about what you find attractive. A woman with a man's voice will be unattractive to most and a fetish for some. Just like muscular women. Male and female is objectively distinguishable. Masculine and feminine is subjectively distinguishable. Some people like getting pegged some like muscular women. It's not gay, just weird.

I know in cured sausage it's bits of fat that might be a little chewy, but crunchy? Dunno about that

>and your bias.

I'm not biased, user. I'm talking about the world's culture as a whole--which certainly is biased.

>>Muscles equal health. Not gender.
I'm glad we agree.

>> There is no spectrum
For the textbook definitoion of gender, sure. You're exactly right.

But as explains, what's popular (aka "the classical ideal") does vary, but it also holds many things somewhat constant. Now then, I'm not saying that's "right" or "justified" or "fair" or any of that crap. But that's the way it is. It's a statistical observation based on the preferences of millions of people. It's not a moral statement.

And further muscles don't equal health. Plenty of unhealthy muscular men out there. They signify fitness. Just like they signify masculinity

>This is not about gender, it's about what you find attractive

And attractivness is determined by genes, and genes are determined by gender.

>Masculine and feminine is subjectively distinguishable.

What your trying to say is that attractivness is subjective. But its not, its genetic.

Except for gays, where it is not genetic and is a degeneration of genetics.

>durr chromosomes make you an X
wow. look at this fucking retard. he thinks biology is obliged to felate his dick.

this isn't how evolution works broheim.

>I'm not biased, user.

Your bias is you belive there is a spectrum between the genes. Where there is none. There is either XX or XY.

>textbook definitoion
What other definition are we using? Let me guess, is it the one that you can streatch to fit whatever you want in it? I bet its that one.

>It's a statistical observation based on the preferences of millions of people.

Preferences are based on gender which is based on genetics. Not some nebulous idea of preference, but a genetic one. Based on survival.

Woman that take can take care of themselves is my fetish.

>thinks an extremely rare disorder negates the fact that an XX chromosome pair make you female while XY makes you male.

>being attracted to this woman means you're gay

nu-male logic everyone

It's trolling, shit-logic (projecting), or sour-grapes. Hating on healthy women is pretty out there.

literally a trap, no thx senpai, I mean if you're gay that's fine, but I'm not into traps

I imagine it's also Summer. It doesn't take more than a year before you can fap to anything.

Traps aren't gay as long as they have a feminine dick.

...

This has nothing to do with not liking "healthy" women, its called not specifically having a prefrence for women with muscles that you would typically see on a man. take your closet faggotry somewhere else.
It would be nu-males that prefer strong wymen so they can be dominated or pegged or whatever butt stuff they are into. If I see a sexy girl that also happens to have some muscles, im fine with that, but having a FETISH about it is a step in the gay direction. Deal with it.

>being this deep in the closet

That's rough man, I hope you get better.

Gross, her arms are like a guy's.

Whats funny is even though you have a gay fetish for manly looking women, they probably never give you the time of day. Ask me if i have a hard time picking up girls that look girls.

do you get hard when picking up guys?

kek, you don't need to prove yourself to me user. You're on Veeky Forums on a Friday night, we're all in this together. I'll support you in your quest to overcome your internalized self-loathing all day long.

Op made the mistake of posting a pic that more interesting than his topic

moosefix.tumblr.com/tagged/me

yep...confirmed tranny.

You need to visit Veeky Forums.

f-fuck you fag

By that logic, being attracted to a feminine dude would be straight.

well, yes but that's totally impossible with a big hairy ball sack giving it away.

I think I'm in love Veeky Forums

I'm baffled that Veeky Forums is a website that you would want to frequent.

I REALLY don't know how to feel about this.

JESUS CHRIST THIS FUCKING BOARD

except it isn't rare

yes, it does, because in society, those people are treated as women, which means your arbitrary qualifier is just that, arbitrary. Not rooted in biology, bullshit, Doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. Are you getting the picture?

Jesus christ how tall is she? I'd like to believe there are strong women taller than me out there.