Let's settle this once and for all. Which is the patrician taste, girls who looks like boys or boys who look like girls?

Let's settle this once and for all. Which is the patrician taste, girls who looks like boys or boys who look like girls?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ciPu4DnKBuM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

For who? Straights? Gays? Men? Women? This question can have multiple correct answers depending on who's asking.

Boy reincarnated into a loli.

they're both pretty great

Schrodinger's gender
Only good answer

reverse traps

Tomboys > all

I like both. HOWEVER, I will not masturbate to tomboys with big tits. I cannot stand it.

Girls who look like boys.

A tomboy's embarrassment!

Both

Girls who look like boys go great with NTR.

both dating each over and confusing EVERYONE

>if a tomboy happens to grow tits she has no right to her personality and needs to change immediately
shallow as a bird bath

A boy who looks like a girl who is actually a girl but got magically transformed into a crossdressing boy.

A TRUE tomboy would not grow tits. If I see one more tomboy character with that breast binding/hidden breasts meme I swear to fuck.

Girls who like girls. Anything else is for sexually nonconforming individuals.

Both are shit. Girls should look like girls and boys should look like boys.

>Girls should look like girls and boys should look like boys.
What girls and boys should "look like" is a social construct

It's mostly biology actually. And the social constructs are based on that biological reality.

>Girls who like girls

As long as it is a girl (girl), it doesn't matter.

Biology doesn't determine society's perception of what men and women should look like. Being born with a dick doesn't determine whether or not you should wear skirts, society does.

No is right on this one and i'm sorry but you probably don't know biology too well if you say that

Pick a random hundred 18 year olds, give them buzzcuts and identical grey clothing. Most people will be able to determine with a high precision which ones of these 100 people are male or female. Sex is more than just the things between your legs. Bone structure, muscle strength, height, fat distribution, voice, brain patterns, sexual urges and instincts, just to name a few examples. Humans are a sexually dysmorphic species. Yes there are outliers, but they don't disprove the norm.

Clothing, hair style, behavioral norms and other "social constructs" associated with gender did not come out of nowhere. They evolved naturally (and individually in several separate places on earth) over time because of these sexually dysmorphic features. The most important informing factor for social imbalances being the unbalanced biological value of males and females. Women are getting protected and treated more as valuable goods than men historically because they actually are more valuable because of their ability to birth and raise children. Men are more disposable, a few males can reproduce with a large number of females, but not vice versa. So a society that exploits that fact will outperform a society that doesn't
Similarly females are physically inferior to males and at least historically needed to rely on the strength of males to protect them from nature and most importantly other males. A lot of instinctual female behavior and as an extension of this, clothing, hair style and mannerism are optimized to garner sympathy and henceforth protection from males.

There was no secret patriarchy meeting in the past where gender roles where handed out and women got the short stick because of misogyny. Like I said these social constructs are mostly based on a biological reality. Does that mean they are good and we should accept them because they are naturally occurring? No, look up "naturalistic fallacy" on google.

...

Bingo.

lost

The truly patrician answer. But here's the real question, is it gay to masturbate to this?

shut up nerd just let me be gay

wow nigga i do NOT care
i still wanna wear pretty frilly dresses even though i'm a boy

>Pick a random hundred 18 year olds, give them buzzcuts and identical grey clothing. Most people will be able to determine with a high precision which ones of these 100 people are male or female. Sex is more than just the things between your legs. Bone structure, muscle strength, height, fat distribution, voice, brain patterns, sexual urges and instincts, just to name a few examples. Humans are a sexually dysmorphic species. Yes there are outliers, but they don't disprove the norm.
he didn't talk about whether or not we can tell man from woman in the same clothes but rather that it's society that tells them what they "should" wear and not biology.

That part is both a setup of establishing facts for the following explanation and also a response to
>Being born with a dick doesn't determine whether or not you should wear skirts, society does.

Society does, but does so because of biology.

>A lot of instinctual female behavior and as an extension of this, clothing, hair style and mannerism are optimized to garner sympathy and henceforth protection from males.
You're stretching very hard m8
>There was no secret patriarchy meeting in the past where gender roles where handed out and women got the short stick because of misogyny.
well, back then, and i mean reeeeeally back then, when patriarchy actually existed, as opposed to now, you wouldn't need a sercet meeting to do that, since that would probably be a sentiment of the majority.

Both, making massively violent love to one another.

The basic gender roles that all of the other stuff is pilled upon are older than organized society. We are talking metaphorical caveman times, or even plains and trees times. The roles of men as protectors, hunters, heavy lifters and dominant partners compared to women as household maintainers, child raisers and sexually valuable property maintained themselves naturally even in small tribes before there was any society or overreaching culture to enforce these things. We find the same behavioral patterns in secluded tribes even today. Primates that are kept together in captivity show instinctual gender roles as well. It is ridiculous to assume humans are somehow unique in this regard and just invented everything related to gender on a whim.

But when we go to more superficial things like clothing, the line to the biological basis becomes thinner. There is no patently obvious reason why men shouldn't wear clothing similar to dresses. Togas, tunicas and kilts existed. Though one can still make a reasonable case that these clothes were still designed to accommodate the male physique and underline masculine virtues to impress fellow males and appear sexually attractive to females. While modern dresses for females are designed to accommodate the female physique and underline female virtues. There is a reason why a full-grown man in a dining dress looks ridiculous and doesn't produce the same emotional reaction from fellow males. That's why I brought up the various biological differences between male and female bodies. Because biology even informs superficial gender roles such as dresses.

It's not gay, it's good taste

pretty sure we can do better than some secluded tribes, but to say that "gender roles" are solely products of biology alone would be incorrect.

I've had a wet dream featuring a girl (boy) for the first time in my life last night. Well, it wasn't as much of a dirty kind of dream as it was a cuddly and happy one.

He was undistinguishable from a girl, had bangs and wore a fluffy pink lolita dress. Smelled like sour patch kids and the only thing giving away him being a male was the fact that his body felt very slender and rather stiff to the touch through that soft puffy dress.

There is no moral to this story. Just felt like sharing.

That's why I wrote this
>Does that mean they are good and we should accept them because they are naturally occurring? No, look up "naturalistic fallacy" on google.
I am just saying that it is this way, not that it should (or should not) be that way.

And gender roles are at least initially based or informed by a biological reality, but they aren't solely products of biology. I was never trying to say they were. We would just call them urges or instincts if they were. They are shaped by society and evolved over time. I wouldn't expect two isolated societies to develop the exact same gender expressions. I would just expect them to show similarities because they share a huge chunk of the same informing factors.

Ignoring the actual biological urges, instincts and physical differences between males and females that inform these gender roles would be wrong as well. It is a mainstream idea these days that genders can be randomly picked, created, mixed and interchanged because people think they were created on a whim and not as the result of an eons long evolutionary process. I mean you can try I guess.

Girls who look like girls are the best

>It is a mainstream idea these days that genders can be randomly picked, created, mixed and interchanged because people think they were created on a whim and not as the result of an eons long evolutionary process. I mean you can try I guess.
Oh i do not agree with that either. I have no less disdain for retarded sjw-esque gender alphabeth delusions than for religious right-wingers and their dogmas that women MUST be this way and men MUST be that way who hijack distort and misinterpret the notion of sexual dismorphism and evolution in an atempt to "back up" their canserous views that stuck in medieval ages.

>boy
He was a grown ass man.

Girls who look like boys. I'd rather feel guilty about fapping to a boy only to feel relief that she's a girl than pleasure myself to a girl and suddenly feel guilty when I find out she wasn't a girl.

Men's clothes look better than women's clothes on everyone.
Women look better in all clothes than men do.

Also, women's fashion is impractical in general. Long hair is annoying to maintain. It would improve any person's quality of life not to have to do so.

Why not both.
Androgyny is hot.

Amazing taste.
I doubt you have it since it's so cropped, but sauce?
or even just context

IS FELIX BABY'S FIRST TRAP?

YES

I cropped it myself, but the thing is it's from a random manga I read fucking ages ago. Barely have any memory of it.

I think there was something about an androgynous trap MC, and summoning a trappy demon? Maybe? And that particular scene was this guy who has a crush on the MC just sitting back while the two traps wrestled because... reasons? Yeah it was years ago.

A boy that looks like a girl is a pretty boy. A girl that looks like a boy is just an ugly girl.

Top one is superior even without feminine penis.

Girls who are human (cat).

HOLY SHIT THIS BECAME A TUMBLR THREAD

Ummmm, Nozomi is really cute. For a GIRL! Which She is! A CUTE GIRL!

You are gay, senpai.

I'd like to clarify what informs culture, much like evolution, is specifically environmental factors, which is a large part of the cultural diversity across the globe. As the 1st world's society has developed to a point where it emphasizes the more unisex strengths of the species, it follows that it would be more appropriate for people to express those strengths in themselves, which leads to all these interesting fetishes. Even if it isn't as pronounced because of said development, sexually dysmorphic features are still just as real as they've ever been.

Astolfo is. Just like Fate.

Girls who look like boys are better than boys who look like girls, but both are better than girls.
Funny thing is , reverse traps don't actually exist

You have excellent taste my friend

Who gives a fuck about 3D?

DON'T POST MY WIFE
or she'll kick you in the face

*your husband

boys who look like girls is for lust
girls who look like boys is for love

youtube.com/watch?v=ciPu4DnKBuM

both are for both

The one with the zero probability of balls touching.

The one with a penis

These.

Girls that look like boys

If you're a faggot, #2. If you're not #1.
A boy looking like a cute girl won't be of much help when there's ultimately still going to be a dick in the way of things.

Glad to see someone actually telling these idiots how reality works.

Boys who look like girls are for head pats and hugs when the world has been crule and I tell them that no, they can't suck my dick.

Girls who look like boys are for brofitsts, hanging out and talking shit and brutal cunt destroying balls deep quasi rape/power fucking, creampies, deep kissing, blowjobs and forced feminization.

>As the 1st world's society has developed to a point where it emphasizes the more unisex strengths of the species

No they haven't. In first world countries the differences are more prevalent than in 3rd world countries, mainly because it you can chose where you work people chose to work in gender specific industries.

The amount of effort that goes into that is insane

Reverse traps and tomboys are the best. That is all.

id fuck either of them.

However girls that look like boys tend to get really flustered when you call them cute and that gets me rock fucking hard.

tomboys with big hidden tits
Naoto is best P4

Girls who love girls no matter how they look.

reminder

Boys who look like men
Everything else is tasteless

Sounds about right.