So.. This means noone can say for sure if it is gayer to like bears or twinks.
We just know both are gayer than straight people.
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
605 points (99.2% liked)
196
17497 readers
1528 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts are not allowed
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not really true? I'm not entirely certain the Kinsey scale is advanced enough to quantify this, but I think liking slim femme twinks is closer to straight than liking big husky bears.
What about guys who like rough muscular girls with strapons?
At some point, you should embrace the blur. It's all one massive ball of wibly wobly sexy wexy.
Yeah, they'd be considered like a 2-3 or so on the Kinsey scale; mostly heterosexual but with some gay attraction. You know you can measure a spectrum right? It doesn't have to be a vague ball of nonsense.
That example is at the beginning of an uncountable set of numbers to the straight side of the spectrum.
But on the other hand, if a femboy twink is attracted to femboy twinks, wouldn't he be more gay than a femboy twink attracted to bears? Because the former is attracted to people more similar to himself?
It's not about similarity, the Kinsey scale just measures your level of attraction to people of the same or opposite sex.
This starts getting more into "what parts of the opposite sex are you attracted to, and how is the other person presenting themself." Femboys present femme, so a femboy liking other femboys might be attracted to their feminine characteristics. If that's the case, they're likely to score closer to strictly heterosexual than a femboy who is attracted to the masc characteristics of a bear. On the other hand, maybe the femboy just really likes the idea of getting railed by another femboy. Then, they might even be more strictly homosexual than the femboy who's attracted to bears, but refuses to be the receptive partner to them and always tops.
I'm gonna need 3Blue1Brown to explain this to me...
so you're saying that big bara men powerfucking each other is the gayest thing in existence?
i'm down.
Ah, but is it gayer to be a big husky bear who likes big husky bears, or to be a slim femme twink who likes big husky bears?
raises hand since when does a spectrum not imply a total order?
A spectrum does imply a total order, but I'd argue that the meme stating there is exactly 1 who is the gayest, OOP is referring to a strict total order. I'd also argue that the gayness spectrum allows degenerate states (heh) and as such is a non-strict total order, rather than the strict total order implied by OOP
A spectrum can have multiple dimensions, like the colour spectrum: obviously red is more red than orange, but blue and green are equally non-red.
Isn't the colour spectrum just wavelength? (which also means stuff like pink isn't on there)
yeah I was talking about RGB colours, the electromagnetic spectrum is just one dimension indeed
The gayest and straightest would be too busy fucking too post.
Every non-empty finite subset of N admit a maximal element. As humanity is a finite subset of N, there is someone there which is the gayest of all.
That's still only if gayness has a total order, partial orders don't need to have one maximal element. (like, if you can say that both Alice and Bob are gayer than Charlie, but you cannot compare Alice's gayness to Bob's)
I've been telling Charlie he's not gay enough for years
Inifinitesimaly small increments of gayness must exist and thus the gayest person as well.
This is not necessarily true. The subset [0, 1) of the real numbers has an upper bound of 1, but it does not contain its upper bound, therefore there is no maximal element. How matter how gay you are, it's always possible to be a little gayer.
True, but for any finite amount of numbers chosen from the interval [0, 1), one of them will be the highest (or several share the max value)
Still, there will be someone assigned a number of gayness from [0,1) that is closest to 1, at any given moment and if there are two dimensions we could find highest and lowest from both and assign weights to each dimension to reduce it to one dimension
I mean to be honest only [0,1) ensures that there can be single gayest because if it was discrete then there could be millions having the same value of 16 for example. So maybe there is someone having 0.99939339 and in algorithm of finding gayest they were the highest at the given moment. Of course someone may be born with 0.99939340 the next day. But what about the floating gay precision? Will we run out of gaymory?
Yes. But the number of humans is finite. With inifinitesimal differences someone still has the biggest gay score.
We just need better science and tools with which to measure more precise levels of gayness.
You're assuming gayness is both integral one-dimensional and integral.
Personally, I think gayness is homomorphic to the set ℝ².
According to that logic, straightness would be heteromorphic to the set ℝ².
Destroyed by pure logic
You're right, I've mixed denombrability of the set and sortability of the measure (don't know if it is the right words in engkish).
On my side, I'm not sure about dimension or continuity of gayness norm.
So instead of general gayness, you have an axis for twink attraction and bear attraction?
This is great. Is there a math memes community on Lemmy to repost this?
I dont think so, but I would love one
Is there gay in invisible parts of the spectrum?
Can I be cosmic gay?
We are all cosmic gays on this blessed day
I imagine it’s like Highlander where there can be only one…and Sean Connery is there.
"You're the man now, dog" takes a completely different twist.
I’m trying not to laugh too hard so my family doesn’t ask me what I’m laughing at.