lol i love how the abstract cites a paper from 1942
look: if you’re disgusted by genitals, i’m sorry to hear that, and i’m not judging you.
but don’t sit there and try to tell me everyone, or even “most people” feels that way.
i can’t speak for goofy looking dicks, but vulvas are extremely attractive; i dunno wtf you, or your 1942 paper referencing “study” are talking about.
again–i’m not judging. but i suggest you post to asklemmy (or literally any other forum), and ask: “are female genitalia no fun to look at/unattractive/weird/whatever tf else” and consider that maybe whatever problem you have with vaginas might not be a baked in instinctual thing that everyone has
you will never quantify an inherently subjective (qualitative) experience. the fact that you’re trying to, and then calling me “goober” is quite enough for me to say: best of luck, tiger
I’ve literally never heard of goober as meaning peanut.
I thought it basically just meant ‘glob’ when describing a physical thing, and when describing a person, basically the same as ‘derpy’, like uh, silly, absent minded, something like that, and is mostly meant in an at least semi endearing way.
lol i love how the abstract cites a paper from 1942
look: if you’re disgusted by genitals, i’m sorry to hear that, and i’m not judging you.
but don’t sit there and try to tell me everyone, or even “most people” feels that way.
i can’t speak for goofy looking dicks, but vulvas are extremely attractive; i dunno wtf you, or your 1942 paper referencing “study” are talking about.
again–i’m not judging. but i suggest you post to asklemmy (or literally any other forum), and ask: “are female genitalia no fun to look at/unattractive/weird/whatever tf else” and consider that maybe whatever problem you have with vaginas might not be a baked in instinctual thing that everyone has
puritans
explains a ton
The paper from 1942 was meant to establish long standing scientific curiosity about the topic, you.
you will never quantify an inherently subjective (qualitative) experience. the fact that you’re trying to, and then calling me “goober” is quite enough for me to say: best of luck, tiger
I agree with you, but you have to put forward a point that doesn’t stand atop misunderstanding a citation, or else I’ll name you another foodstuff
Wait, goober is a foodstuff?
???
Another name for a peanut. Not sure how it became a soft pejorative, but I’m a fan
What?
I’ve literally never heard of goober as meaning peanut.
I thought it basically just meant ‘glob’ when describing a physical thing, and when describing a person, basically the same as ‘derpy’, like uh, silly, absent minded, something like that, and is mostly meant in an at least semi endearing way.
you will never quantify an inherently subjective (qualitative) experience
Objective truth, ungoober’d