Are straight bottoms ontologically possible?

>>40506538 (OP)
I think so.
You ever see those videos of dudes fucking women submissively? Laying down, legs up above them and everything like a woman, with his dick pointed downwards and the woman rides his dick that way, in control and dominant.

That's the closest I can think of a straight bottom

>>40506579
>You ever see those videos of dudes fucking women submissively?
no?

>>40506538 (OP)
kant would say they are all straight or they are all gay, there is no inbetween, therefore ontologically impossible

>>40506585
lol

>>40506585
lmao I've seen it posted on /pol/ a few times in some "modern men are weak" bullshit thread

bottoms don't get to have a choice in sexuality so they always end up bi

>>40506538 (OP)
Straight guys getting pegged I guess? You can say that if you like getting pegged then you are actually gay or bi or something but it's the closest thing I got

>>40508183
no i mean straight men being fucked in the ass by tranny cock
if trans women are women despite having penises, why cant bottoms be straight despite taking dick?
transgenderism is contradictory

I want to give head to a cissy girl taller than me so yes

>>40506538 (OP)
>kant
That's not Kant, that's Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi.
Kant was a goblin looking dwarf

>>40508470
jesus

>>40508470
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Heinrich_Jacobi
>Portrait of Jacobi, sometimes erroneously identified as portrait of Immanuel Kant

https://www.google.com/search?vsrid=CICSueGhqf3ihQEQAhgBIiRkM2JhMDkwNC04YjBmLTQ4MTMtYjljOC04NGJmZWE2ZmNhOGUyBiICcHcoBDiI1aWmhduOAw&vsint=CAIqDAoCCAcSAggKGAEgATojChYNAAAAPxUAAAA_HQAAgD8lAACAPzABEIAIGOUGJQAAgD8&udm=26&lns_mode=un&source=lns.web.ukn&vsdim=1024,869&gsessionid=CVzacwZqovDHAd5xVO5QS1zkMUiFiqVG8gz1isWNoFLqvduZAWiHiw&lsessionid=TqimGLnmom93lAw98xrLyFNfMuBYrXlsSCedoGsCRirAGomO39QH9Q&lns_surface=26&lns_vfs=e
>Google reverse image search + AI mistakenly think it's Immanuel Kant

lmao