Is It Logical for a Woman to be a Lesbian?
Options
Plutarch
Members Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭✭✭
Or at least bi? I say this because I’m entertaining the general idea that women are universally beautiful/attractive. I know that I’m biased, but imo men are not attractive, and they were never meant to be. The most that I can concede is that some men can be handsome, but I wouldn’t consider that beauty or anything truly attractive on a universal level.
So if women are universally attractive, then it’s entirely reasonable for women, let alone men, to be attracted to other women, at least physically. So doesn’t that then make lesbianism logical?
When I say that women are universally attractive, I'm extending that to the general, female personality too, not just the physical. Because I also believe that if you take a general idea of a woman’s perfect man, then what you’d have is basically a woman. I’ll give my reasoning for this. Many, many women are attracted to and desire men who are “pretty”, metrosexual, sensitive, cute, and/or even ? – and these are all feminine characteristics. A woman might want a thug or a manly man, but most of the time, they’ll add the fact that they also want this thug to be sensitive. Also, ? men like Ryan Seacrest and Ricky Martin have a massive amount of female admirers, even though these admireres know that these men are clearly not interested in women romantically. Justin Beiber has millions of female admirers because he looks like a chick. Then there are others, like Prince, who can be quite feminine as well, yet women drool over them.
Unlike men, women also casually and have no problem displaying homosocial or homosexual behavior: kissing each other, hugging each other, complimenting each other’s physical appearances, dancing with each other, etc. Unlike men, this is also basically socially acceptable. Perhaps even logical?
Biblically and historically, women have been mythicized to be vain, meaning that they are narcissistic when it comes to their own beauty and appearance. Could this be because the female form is universally pleasing/attractive?
Following this logic, men, whether they want to admit or not, are attracted to (pseudo) female beauty even when it’s not of a woman’s. If a ? looks like a woman, then it’s only logical that a man will be physically attracted to that ? even though it’s a dude. If anything looks like a legitimate, beautiful female, then a man will be physically attracted to him/her/it because the female form is universally attractive, right?
So with all this being said, then isn’t it logical for a woman to be attracted, even sexually, to another woman? Isn’t lesbianism only logical? So to the women here, I'm just curious: are you attracted to women? And if so, to what extent?
So if women are universally attractive, then it’s entirely reasonable for women, let alone men, to be attracted to other women, at least physically. So doesn’t that then make lesbianism logical?
When I say that women are universally attractive, I'm extending that to the general, female personality too, not just the physical. Because I also believe that if you take a general idea of a woman’s perfect man, then what you’d have is basically a woman. I’ll give my reasoning for this. Many, many women are attracted to and desire men who are “pretty”, metrosexual, sensitive, cute, and/or even ? – and these are all feminine characteristics. A woman might want a thug or a manly man, but most of the time, they’ll add the fact that they also want this thug to be sensitive. Also, ? men like Ryan Seacrest and Ricky Martin have a massive amount of female admirers, even though these admireres know that these men are clearly not interested in women romantically. Justin Beiber has millions of female admirers because he looks like a chick. Then there are others, like Prince, who can be quite feminine as well, yet women drool over them.
Unlike men, women also casually and have no problem displaying homosocial or homosexual behavior: kissing each other, hugging each other, complimenting each other’s physical appearances, dancing with each other, etc. Unlike men, this is also basically socially acceptable. Perhaps even logical?
Biblically and historically, women have been mythicized to be vain, meaning that they are narcissistic when it comes to their own beauty and appearance. Could this be because the female form is universally pleasing/attractive?
Following this logic, men, whether they want to admit or not, are attracted to (pseudo) female beauty even when it’s not of a woman’s. If a ? looks like a woman, then it’s only logical that a man will be physically attracted to that ? even though it’s a dude. If anything looks like a legitimate, beautiful female, then a man will be physically attracted to him/her/it because the female form is universally attractive, right?
So with all this being said, then isn’t it logical for a woman to be attracted, even sexually, to another woman? Isn’t lesbianism only logical? So to the women here, I'm just curious: are you attracted to women? And if so, to what extent?
Comments
-
there's a big difference between finding somebody attractive & being attracted to them. & being attracted to someone doesn't have to mean sexually....idk. it's a bit more complicated than how the question was formed.
-
Attracted to women? No.
Find women attractive? Yes, but not enough to sleep with one.
I think some women have no problem displaying homosexual behavior because it has become socially acceptable and also encouraged by media, men, and other women. -
atribecalledgabi wrote: »there's a big difference between finding somebody attractive & being attracted to them. & being attracted to someone doesn't mean sexually....idk. it's a bit more complicated than how the question was formed.
Yeah that's true. It is complicated. I can't really explain it well right now. But still, I'm sure that lesbians have found women attractive and have had sex with them, but at the same time haven't been truly attracted to them or in "love" with them. If that makes any sense. At this rate, I might have to consider defining lesbian for clarification purposes. -
~SpecialK~ wrote: »Attracted to women? No.
Find women attractive? Yes, but not enough to sleep with one.
Now I'm confused. I see finding women attractive and being attracted to women as the same thing. But you're probably talking about admiring a woman's appearance vs. wanting to have a sexual relationship with a woman. That makes sense.~SpecialK~ wrote: »I think some women have no problem displaying homosexual behavior because it has become socially acceptable and also encouraged by media, men, and other women.
True. If I were to apply nature v nurture argument here, nurture definitely has influence here. But I'm still thinking female beauty might be a natural and universally admired thing as well. -
yes it's logical for a women to be a lesbian.... these types of women that really show their serious about their sexual orientation are the types of women that carries themselves as a ? ... they try to carry themselves like a male, so the perception would come off as they are the "Man" of the relationship....
then you have the women who uses "homosexuality" as a fad, as a social expression that is accepted from men, media and other women... -
@Plutarch
You are right, that is what I meant.
Interesting articles:
huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/20/study-more-than-half-of-women-attracted-to-other-women_n_1021730.html
And slightly off your original question but interesting:
psychologytoday.com/articles/201010/the-truth-about-beauty -
~SpecialK~ wrote: »@Plutarch
You are right, that is what I meant.
Interesting articles:
huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/20/study-more-than-half-of-women-attracted-to-other-women_n_1021730.html
And slightly off your original question but interesting:
psychologytoday.com/articles/201010/the-truth-about-beauty
interesting articles indeed (as well as the comments from others for the first one). The second article was very interesting. I agreed with 99% of the things she wrote in that article. And never knew about a lot of the things she talked about, but it made a lot of sense. One part made me think about another topic that I've been thinking about for some time. I'll make a thread about it sometime.
anyways, I know that we have more ladies on this site with an opinion on this matter. Let me pose the question again: So to the women here, I'm just curious: are you attracted to women? And if so, to what extent? . I'm honestly curious about this. -
LOL @ Logical. Like lesbianism is some type of philosophy
-
LOL @ Logical. Like lesbianism is some type of philosophy
Doesn't have to be a philosophy to be logical. I don't even see how philosophy has much to do with logic. Anyways, for clarification purposes here, "lesbianism" is just kind of like a figure of speech, similar to the meaning of "homosexuality" but only as it refers to homosexual/homosocial women. It's just the noun form of "lesbian". Just forget about the "ism" part. This all makes sense when you think about it.
Though it can be argued that lesbianism is a philosophy if philosophy is defined as a way of life but that's neither here nor there. -
It's stupid when they like females who dress like dudes and uses strap-ons on them.
-
s_a_m_r_i_o wrote: »It's stupid when they like females who dress like dudes and uses strap-ons on them.
Yea I don't understood that. Women who like other women who look, dress, and act like dudes. I'll never understand that.
On the other hand, I think that I can understand women who like other women who look, dress, and act like women. That's the whole point of my thread. If a woman has the choice of either choosing a dude with a ? or a ? with a strap-on, I can understand if liked both options. -
hoes get depressed after their period because they realize they didn't get pregnant and have to wait another month for their next chance. all hoes want is to be pregnant really, and hoes can't get other hoes pregnant. So really it makes no since for hoes to by dykin, atleast more than part time.
-
Hoes are just hoes, they'll take it anyway they can get it
-
? you gabbi.
-
s_a_m_r_i_o wrote: »It's stupid when they like females who dress like dudes and uses strap-ons on them.
Yea I don't understood that. Women who like other women who look, dress, and act like dudes. I'll never understand that.
On the other hand, I think that I can understand women who like other women who look, dress, and act like women. That's the whole point of my thread. If a woman has the choice of either choosing a dude with a ? or a ? with a strap-on, I can understand if liked both options.
just evidence some of these chicks are truly lost
sometimes I wonder if it's an indictment on the poor quality of men out here -
-
O/p seems like a long-winded, and pseudo intellectual way of promoting lesbianism. Women being 'universally beautiful', whether that's true or not, is an aspect of this culture we live in not some all encompassing maxim. Some cultures like Ancient Greece actually held male beauty in higher regard than female beauty, no ? .
-
When men are born ? and their genes are not meant to be passed on... Every woman can hold a child barring any incidents that may occur in a lifetime however.
Both are illogical, but one takes far more dedication.
Its easy for a girl to have another girl eat her out or play with her ? , but its a whole nother thing for a straight man too decide he wants ? up the ass.
Lesbians are not real, its all propaganda by ugly chicks. -
High Revolutionary wrote: »O/p seems like a long-winded, and pseudo intellectual way of promoting lesbianism.
Long-winded? Maybe, but I like to be thorough. Pseudo-intellectual? I honestly think that's an unfair, conceited, and baseless claim, but maybe I'm ignorant. Or maybe I still don't understand how "pseudo intellectual" has become such a popular word to throw around nowadays.
If you really think that I'm promoting lesbianism, then you've missed the objective of my post. My post was just an opinion to "entertain" the idea that it seems reasonable/logical, let alone acceptable, for women to engage in homosexual relationships.High Revolutionary wrote: »Women being 'universally beautiful', whether that's true or not, is an aspect of this culture we live in not some all encompassing maxim.
It's already been established that culture and society plays a clear role in this. That's the role of nurture. However, I'm also interested in any role that nature plays. And I still do believe that nature also plays a role. Yes, I am aware and agree that beauty is very subjective, especially historically. I don't generally believe in absolutes, but I do believe in general truths that may present themselves as common/universal threads. The idea that women are universally beautiful doesnt have to be some perfect or absolute concept, it can be messy but still true. And I still think that it is true to a good extent for many of the reasons that have already been stated and contributed.High Revolutionary wrote: »Some cultures like Ancient Greece actually held male beauty in higher regard than female beauty,
That's very interesting. But I'm skeptical. I'm no Classics scholar but I know a little enough to say that even if this is true, it doesn't necessarily disprove my "argument." Women were still highly regarded as beautiful as well. Ancient Greece wasn't just some homosexual paradise. Greek mythology had Aphrodite/Venus, the most beautiful goddess of them all. In fact, her beauty rivalry with Athena and Hera provoked one of the greatest, if not the greatest, mythological wars of them all. And this particular war was fought over Helen, supposedly the most beautiful woman in all of Greece.
I think that men in Ancient Greece were held in high regard as far as beauty goes because Ancient Greece was a very male-dominated and male-centered society and culture. Women were generally oppressed and restricted to the domestic sphere.High Revolutionary wrote: »no ? .
So guys still do this? -
ParallelRhymes wrote: »Didn't read the original post but it would depend on which stance you take in regards to things like evolution/biology/etc to determine if it is logical or not.
Very true. Evolution is very interesting and real, but I find a lot of it very hard to truly understand.
This is slightly off-topic, but I believe that female ? are evolving or have evolved. I believe that female ? started out as purely biological: they were/are simply sacs of fat with the only purpose to nurse young. They probably started out as "ugly" and saggy, like something we would find in some tribal villages. Now, however, ? , like a whole lot of other things, have become sexualized: perky, firm, and "beautiful". And this sexualized form seems to be overshadowing the biological form. Women don't breastfeed anymore. ? are now simply sexual objects now. I've also heard that female ? have also evolved to more resemble female buttocks. Now if you ask me why this kind of evolution is happening, I have no answer.
To go on another tangent, human males seem to be the only species whose ? size is so out of proportion to thier body size. Body-wise, male gorillas are bigger than male humans, but thier ? size is significantly smaller than male humans. So if this is evolution too, what's the purpose of it all? -
32DaysOfInfiniti wrote: »When men are born ? and their genes are not meant to be passed on... Every woman can hold a child barring any incidents that may occur in a lifetime however.
I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying, but can't women be born ? too? And can't there be lesbians who don't want children or lesbians who adopt?32DaysOfInfiniti wrote: »Its easy for a girl to have another girl eat her out or play with her ?
Is it really that easy? And if so, then why?32DaysOfInfiniti wrote: »Lesbians are not real, its all propaganda by ugly chicks.
Are you saying that "lesbians" are only ugly chicks who are straight but desperate, so they mess with other women because men don't want them? -
32DaysOfInfiniti wrote: »When men are born ? and their genes are not meant to be passed on... Every woman can hold a child barring any incidents that may occur in a lifetime however.
I'm not sure that I understand what you're saying, but can't women be born ? too? And can't there be lesbians who don't want children or lesbians who adopt?32DaysOfInfiniti wrote: »Its easy for a girl to have another girl eat her out or play with her ?
Is it really that easy? And if so, then why?32DaysOfInfiniti wrote: »Lesbians are not real, its all propaganda by ugly chicks.
Are you saying that "lesbians" are only ugly chicks who are straight but desperate, so they mess with other women because men don't want them?
No, woman cannot be born ? . Males who are born ? are usually frail, feminine, and unfit to repopulate. That is why they are the minority. They cannot reproduce because they cannot have sex with woman. Their genes are not meant to be carried on hence survival of the fittest. They are obviously not the fittest if they cant even reproduce naturally. Now, you could argue that a ? man can still get a girl pregnant but if he is truly ? and not "experimenting" as so many "men" are doing these days, then the act of homosexuality which they are predispositioned too, creates no condition where carrying on your specific genes would be feasible. No matter what the situation is, upon birth (barring aids, ? , or whatever else may render a females ? unusable), every female is/will be capable of delivering babies upon reaching maturity. A ? ensures this, no matter what feelings they personally develop as to why men arent fit to ? them.
Yes it is that easy, because there is nothing another woman can do physically for another woman that a male cant do as well, but on the flip side, a man needs a woman, to do what heterosexual fornication requires. A female can close her eyes, and it doesnt matter if a man, woman, or dog is licking her ? , she will get off regardless. This isnt even mentioning that one of the number one acts performed by lesbians is ? insertion. So if they dont need men, then why do they still need ? ? Ill wait on that one...
Yes and no, they are not so much desperate as they are rejected, neglected and broken. Alot if not all of "butch" lesbians were childhood abuse victims, bullied, ? , or molested. They use their hate for men (despite how legit their gripe may be) as a reason too turn other girls against them and inspire independence. It has nothing too do with being born that way. These butch chicks decide they are against men, and start brainwashing regular chicks to hate men as well convincing them that they dont need them. It sounds like a conspiracy theory or something and it is a conspiracy, but it's fact not theory.
Its all mental
