Skip to main content

Or maybe that doesn't really happen that way for gay dudes, and the gay dudes on 4chan are just lying.

I'm not a sociologist or anything, but isn't human nature that, when we see two things side-by-side, we automatically try to determine which one is better? I mean, if there are two donuts on a plate we pretty much evaluate which one is the better donut, even if we end up eating both of them.

And sometimes the decision is obvious: you got a killer maple bar sitting next to some deflated vegan non-gluten thing with a hole in it, you leave the deflated vegan non-gluten thing with a hole in it for the next dude, sorry.

But sometimes the two things are hard to decide between, and that is what happens when you are looking at two chicks. Because maybe one is blonde with a navel ring, but the brunette chick has killer tits. It's like they are both maple bars, really.

In a porn film you'd get both of them, with one sucking your cock while the other licks your balls, but that doesn't happen in real life unless you're rich, or a gay dude in Seattle. Because a gay dude in Seattle probably doesn't have much trouble getting two other gay dudes to suck his cock and lick his balls.

Or maybe that doesn't really happen that way for gay dudes, and the gay dudes on 4chan are just lying. But that would suck, because getting two other gay dudes to suck your cock and lick your balls seems like it would be one of the advantages of being gay.

Anyway, we're wired to pick one when we see two. Like, on 4chan you might be looking at a picture of two chicks spreading their ass cheeks and showing their assholes, and the chicks might not really be that different, but you're gonna pick one as better than the other, because you kinda have to, it's biology and shit.

And people get upset that people do this kinda thing, but I think hypocrisy is a biological thing too, maybe. Like, we're wired to think that when we do something it's different than when other people do that thing, because other people are idiots, mostly, us smart people can see the difference. And if you don't think this way you're neurotic, and neurotic cave-men didn't get laid, they just drew shit on cave walls and felt like no one appreciated their genius, even though they still couldn't even make a fire without lightning hitting a tree and shit.

Comments

  1. JaqApril 14, 2018 at 4:07 AM

    killer maple bar sitting next to some deflated vegan non-gluten thing with a hole in it,.

    I wonder what Freud would say about that sentence.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I mean, straight men in their seventies don’t dress like a pirate unless they are actually a pirate, okay?

I always thought the song was, like, Mick’s way of letting Keith know gently that, no, Mick was not going to fuck him and shit. Because if you can’t tell that Keith Richards is gay then you just don’t know how to look. I mean, straight men in their seventies don’t dress like a pirate unless they are actually a pirate, okay? So when Mick sings “I saw her today at the reception A glass of wine in her hand I knew she was gonna meet her connection” The ‘her’ is Keith, and Keith and Mick are at, like, some party or shit, and Keith’s looking for his drug dealer, because he’s not going to get to fuck Mick and now he needs some more drugs. Pretty obvious. Then Mick sings “But I went down to the demonstration To get your fair share of abuse Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration If we don't we're gonna blow a fifty-amp fuse" And the ‘demonstration’ is a metaphor for the recording studio, where Keith is abusive of Mick because Mick isn’t rock-and-roll e...
1 comment
Read more

I mean, most of the time the cattle prods are like a metaphor and shit, but sometimes you need a real cattle prod to make your shit obvious.

"our favorite characters are unrelentingly tortured — electrocuted with cattle prods, kicked, threatened with dogs, chained to a gas stove and burned, left alive on a gallows covered with urine." This does kinda sound like harsh shit, but it's, like, a corollary of Internet Rule 34: if it's on video and involves a chick, some dude somewhere will masturbate to it. It's just how media works, if it can't get chicks outraged and dudes masturbating then it isn't doing the job. But "The Handmaid’s Tale" is, like, for chicks to masturbate their feminist clit. Because a lot of chicks feel the most represented in art when they are a victim, like, getting electrocuted with cattle prods. I mean, most of the time the cattle prods are like a metaphor and shit, but sometimes you need a real cattle prod to make your shit obvious. It's kinda like how chicks get Oscars for portraying hookers: because all chicks are hookers and being electrocuted by catt...
1 comment
Read more

Because if you look at rock stars from back in the day, they all pretty much look like twinks, too.

So, like, I did a little research, because some of the gay dudes I know say all twinks are bottoms. And the first Google article has some twinks who say, no, that's a misconception and shit. But then Queerty actually did a survey of gay dudes, and they said, yeah, most twinks are bottoms. But I don't think all twinks are gay and shit. Because if you look at rock stars from back in the day, they all pretty much look like twinks, too. I mean, Mick Jagger: when he was young, he was pretty much a twink, and he wasn't, like, gay ALL the time. And David Bowie was a twink, and HE wasn't gay all the time. There is even that rumor that Jagger and Bowie fucked each other once, but I don't remember if it was ever said who was the bottom. I bet it was Bowie, but that's just a guess, really, maybe he and Jagger both took turns being bottoms and shit. Now, Freddie Mercury: he was pretty much gay all the time, but I don't think he was a twink, I don't think most ...
Post a Comment
Read more