/jp/ - Otaku Culture

>>2264162,17
I love man-hating lesbians.

But yuri is not about hating men! It's actually very appealing to regular males! Some of us are just that messed up.

>>2264162,12
>>2264162,14
I actually enjoy the lame and boring Marimite-esque relationship crap and yuri love a lot more over plain lesbian sex, which I find pretty boring. But I suppose I'm messed up, I'm idealizing a platonic relationship with a female lesbian from /jp/, for God's sake.

I was just making the point that enjoying lesbian/yuri sex is something perfectly normal and it doesn't hurt the "male pride" of all the normal, non-weeaboo straight guys who enjoy it.

Oh and you can come over to my house and fuck my sister anytime.

>>2264162,12
>Filipino
Oh wow, I can't believe I forgot about this detail. Way to ruin my perfect idealization of a /jp/ lesbian, Ghost Anon.

I'll live with it, creepy, almost stalkerish obsession and unreasonable expectations over the Internet is too fun to pass up.

>>2264162,8
Why not? It's hot. The female body is attractive. The fetish of every "normalfag" is to watch his girlfriend go down on some other girl. <-- this is a fact, ask anyone else. 10 out of 10 retarded frat boys agree with this, it's not some borderline gay fetish like futa or traps (not saying they are bad, just that they're a lot "more gay" than liking yuri).

There's something wrong with your brain, straight guys jack off to lesbians throughout the world. And yuri is just that, cartoon lesbians.

Maybe you don't like the "emotional" part some yuri-centric shows/manga have. That's ok, no one says you have to enjoy that sort of stuff. Many people don't like that part of yuri, but most just find it painfully boring or outright retarded and unrealistic. I never heard of anyone complaining about yuri hurting their male pride before, that's pretty weird, bro.

>>2264162,6
You cannot fuck the girls in the doujinshi, Anonymous, it doesn't matter if they're lesbians or not. Why would it hurt your "male pride?" Does tentacle rape also hurt your "male pride" because the girls are giving attention to something that isn't a male of your species?

And every single "normal" guy loves lesbians. Are you some kind of really insecure closet homosexual? That's the only reason I can think of.

Enjoy being a fucking faggot, Anonymous (there's nothing wrong with it, but being a faggot and denying it is pretty sad).

>>2264162,3
What's wrong with yuri? How is it any different from liking loli, futa or any other fetish? I don't understand all the hate, is it because /u/ is a shithole? (it really is)

And stop randomly attaching "fag" to words, it makes you look like a /b/tard. You're in the archive, you should know better.

>>2266724,3
And by that I mean that people who "don't believe" in evolution are fucking retarded, if I wasn't clear enough. It's the same as "not believing" in gravity.

It's one thing to be uneducated (well, it's not ok, but we can't all be experts on everything), but it's a completely different thing to act like you're qualified to make a reasoning about a certain scientific theory when you simply aren't.

A child must believe Fermat's Last Theorem is indeed true. Regular people must believe Einstein's Theory of Relativity is true. How come Neo-Darwinism gets a different treatment? Why do random truck drivers get to say if they believe in it or not?

Oh, and just like gay people and contraceptives could be accepted by Christianity if people weren't so obsessed with stuff that is only barely mentioned in the Bible, evolution can match Christianity perfectly if you're willing to not take some stuff in there literally (WHICH IS WHAT PEOPLE ALREADY DO FOR A LARGE PORTION OF THE BIBLE'S CONTENT, or do you believe Pi = 3? Or do you lock up your women when they're having their periods? I can go on with a very large list of things mentioned in the Bible that no modern Christian follows, believes in or even recognizes as anything more than allegoric).

Darwin was Christian and he saw nothing in his theory that contradicted his beliefs. The world would be so much better if people tried to match their religious beliefs based on what we currently know about reality and not the opposite. What's the point of blind denial for some things when you already had to admit they were wrong for so many other things?

>>2266655
It's because people think they know what evolution is, when in reality, they have no clue.

It's a bit like people who know nothing about math and calculus "not believing" that 1/0 isn't 0 or that 0.9999999(9) is the same number as 1.

Of course, the thing with math is that "normal people" (and by normal I mean uneducated) usually don't try to argue against numbers and mathematical proofs. But when you're able to put a theory in words, ooh boy, suddenly even Billy Joe from Hicksville is an expert and will gladly give his opinion on the matter.

Comment too long!

Say you're strong. You're so strong you're able to hunt a lot, you're a really fierce predator with no obstacles. Whoops, you hunted too much. Your species has no food anymore, you're fucked. The same applies for animals that reproduce a lot. This is the reason why predators and prey are usually naturally balanced in habitats and why you don't see large predators having babies like rats and rabbits.

Say you're beautiful or really shiny. Females love you. Whoops, your predators also love you. You're now a prime target. This is the reason why shiny and colorful animals or plants tend to be poisonous. Otherwise they would just get eaten first.

So you're smart. This means nothing if smarts aren't going to give you any advantage in your environment. In pre-history, our species was really close to extinction due to war/disease/famine. They estimate that at one point, the entire human population was just made up of a few thousands.

This whole "the strongest" crap was just Hitler putting words on Darwin's mouth so he could pretend his arguments were scientific.

Fuck this shit, I typed so much only to get 404'd.

>>2266637
No, Darwinism was never about being "the strongest." Anyone who took a basic High School Biology course knows this. It's about the fittest. The fittest in a particular environment.

Take a classic example. A field of grass divided in two. On the left side, you have sheeps. On the right side, the grass just grows freely.

On the right side, the grass will tend to become taller, with larger leafs so they can absorb more sunlight. The larger grass will kill off the smaller grass, since the latter get less sun. This environment favors grass that can grow taller and larger.

On the left side, sheeps obviously prefer eating the tall and greener grass first. Why would you settle for less when you have plenty of that? As the strongest grass gets eliminated by the sheeps, the left field becomes entirely populated with glass that is genetically smaller and weaker. In this environment, small and sickly looking grass is the fittest.

Evolution is not about being the strongest/more beautiful/smartest/reproducing faster. It's simply about being the fittest for that particular environment.