Basic straight people 

Until this video no good sentence had ever started with "I don't think it's bigoted to admit that"

Careful mate. You don't wanna get too close to the breeders.

I am saying it like that

I hate that guy! Lying to get in a meditations video, as Frankie says standard deviation straights don't know any dead people

I came to the comments just for thisxdxd

@@soygandalf3968 me too

Everybody talking about otters, twinks, bears... But this is sn unexplored mine

@@emptycinema If you're heading down straight female territory you have to veer away from the visuals(except maybe height).. think personality, humour, commitment, shy, nerdy, charm, daddy qualities(and I'm not talking in the sexual way, I mean actual father to children) stability, income....

We sould get a special flag And paint the roads

Gaussian peak.

For me, it was 5 years ago. Lmao.

Thanks it was me 🙂 (I’m lying)

There is an event in Canada called Bicolline I think you need to visit

you made me laugh, thx 💜

@@ViViVexme when i lie

They listen to Ed Sheeran, it is an impossible feat to find STDDEV heterosexuality appealing.

It's so brave of you to talk about it. Praying to gay Jesus 4 u🙏🙏🙏

I think what you meant to say was it's pure mundanity 😁

@@alibushell6762Most straights have to live this kind of lifestyle if they decide to have children and want to raise healthy happy children. Kids do best in a stable secure home. I'm not saying two same-sex parents can't do the same, but they are having children together(surrogacy or adoption) far less than straight people are. I'm sure if a gay couple decide to start a family they also live the same kind of lifestyle as a straight couple. There's no way some gays could still live their lifestyle with children in the picture, especially the ones partying and hooking up with different people all the time or who are very self involved. When you have children they come first and you have to make them the priority.

@@kmarie7051 Not really, monogamy isn't the default for human beings and it's certanly not a prerequisite for raising happy healthy children, or synonymous with either stability or security.

@@apocalypt_us7941 Well you could certainly raise a healthy happy child as a single parent, but a child still needs a secure stable home and you could not live the type of lifestyle a lot of gay guys without children live. When it comes to monogamy, most people-based on a variety of convergent forms of evidence- are going to be most interested in serial monogamy. We see it across all different societies and cultures and it's existed in every society and culture in humans on earth as far as we know. There is no culture we know of where no one falls in love or where nobody gets jealous. Even in cave men times before societies on large scales existed or socialisation and marriage, cave men didn't abandon their offspring and mother of their children, they were hunter-gatherers who went out hunting for food and building homes, while mothers were giving birth, breastfeeding, raising the child, and ensuring his or her survival. If you look at cultures where men are allowed to have multiple wives, they generally don't. Something like 90-95% of men in non-monogamous cultures where they are allowed multiple wives only marry one woman. The fact we feel romantic love at all and pair-bonding emotions is not a coincidence, nothing is a coincidence in biology. Jealousy a mate-guarding emotion is a very strong psychological signal that we are interested in monogamy, at the very least stopping our mates mating with other people. We are a mostly monogamous species. I'm not saying infidelity is not natural as well, but the fact we have these monogamous unions and pair-bonds is evidence that it's natural. Looking at our species and what they naturally do generally is form relationships. There's a variety of different form of evidence that the human species strongest tendency is towards serial monogamy pair-bonding relationships. Sexual dimorphism predicts differences in mating strategies and species like humans with less dimorphism. Across primates, minimal levels of sexual dimorphism in body weight and canine size are generally associated with monogamy and low rates of male antagonistic competition. Male mating competition decreased in intensity over the course of hominin evolution in conjunction with a rise in monogamy. Humans today express only slight differences in body size by sex compared to closely-related promiscuous and polygynous species. Also in polygamous societies where one male would impregnate a harem of women(only the rich men could afford to have an harem of women), that leaves lots of other males who impregnate none, like we see in other species like sea lions and seals. The strongest most dominant males have a harem of females and most of the other males are bachelors. No matter how many males are left bachelors with no offspring, pretty much useless and not procreating or in the gene pool, natural selection will still keep a 50/ 50 sex ratio. That why if a percentage of males are having multiple females, that's always going to leave the rest without. The reason for 50/50 sex ratio is because the chances of having a male born who will have dozens of offspring, compared to ones that have none averages out the same average expectation of reproduction that you would get if you were to have a female, because a female is pretty much guaranteed to reproduce offspring even if they don't have as many as the males who are reproducing with multiple females, they still have more than the males who don't have any. The probability of creating a male or a female is exactly 50/ 50 because the offspring is male if and only if the father contributes a Y chromosome, which happens half of the time. The sex ratio at the zygote stage is about 50/ 50 in most species, including humans. This is an equilibrium point, and natural selection will drive the population back to it if it ever deviates from it. it's most beneficial to produce a balanced sex ratio in the children because it leads to the maximum chances for reproduction in future generations. Although there's less male-male competition when there is less dimorphism in a species and higher monogamy and pair-bonding unions. Human females lack obvious visible signals of ovulation, particularly in comparison to the conspicuous sexual swellings of, for example, chimpanzees and baboons. Concealed ovulation and constant sexual receptivity of human females facilitates social monogamy. Limiting information available to males regarding fertility, thereby promoting monogamy through mate guarding and/or paternal care . Specifically, given that humans live in multi male/multi female groups, concealed ovulation is argued to minimize male-male competition and allow for stable, monogamous unions. Penis configurations across primate species are generally much more interesting than the human penis. The penises of other primate species commonly have lumps, ridges, kinks, spines or flanges, whereas the straight and smooth human penis lacks such features (unless you are rather unfortunate!). Bland characters such as the human penis are usually found in monogamous animal species. Humans fall within the range of variation typical of pair-bonded species. The lack of exaggerated sexual dimorphism or testis size seems to rule out a history of elevated reproductive skew typical of highly promiscuous or polygynous mating systems. Instead, biological indicators suggest a mating system where both sexes form a long-term pair-bond with a single partner. Humans today express only slight differences in body size by sex compared to closely-related promiscuous and polygynous species. Ancestral polygamous mating system was replaced by pair bonding when lower-ranked hominin males diverted energy from fighting one another toward finding food to bring to females as an incentive to mate. Females preferred reliable providers to aggressive competitors and bonded with the better foragers. Eventually females lost the skin swelling or other signs of sexual receptivity that would have attracted different males while their partners were off gathering food. The more dimorphic a primate species is, the more likely it is that males fight over females. At one extreme, polygamous gorilla males grow to be more than twice as massive as females. At the opposite extreme, both male and female gibbons, which are mainly monogamous, are nearly equal in mass. Humans lie closer to gibbons on the dimorphism spectrum: human males can be up to 20 percent more massive, on average, than females. Keeping many mates is hard work. It involves a lot of fighting with other males and guarding females. Monogamy might have emerged as the best way to reduce the effort of polygamy. There is an innate tendency towards monogamy; to engage in sexually exclusive romantic pair-bonding for bi-parental care. People who are securely attached, authentic, and high in empathy with good communication skills tend to be better at monogamy. This is one of the reasons these type of emotions have evolved in men and why they care for their children. Under certain circumstances, monogamy can increase male fitness more than deserting a partner and remating. Once biparental care becomes established, specialization of care tasks by males and females may serve to stabilize the pair-bond. Monogamy is natural because fathering is natural in the human species and fathering only evolves with sufficient sexual exclusivity to allow for paternity certainty for men and sufficient resource provision certainty for women. Human babies are completely helpless at birth and need parental care for years afterward. Ergo, in the case of Homo sapiens, two parents are better than one. The human life history pattern (i.e., short birth intervals, relatively high child survival, and a long period of juvenile dependence) means that mothers are often in the position of supporting multiple dependents of various ages simultaneously. Because infants, juveniles, and adolescents each require different kinds of time and energy investments, mothers are posed with an allocation problem throughout much of their reproductive career: how to care for infants and small children without compromising time spent in activities that provide food and other resources for older children. How mothers resolve this trade-off to support a rapid reproductive pace has long been theoretically tied to monogamy and the cooperation of fathers, siblings, and others to help mothers raise dependents. Monogamy most frequently emerged in carnivores and primates, suggesting that species will tend toward mating in pairs when its females require a rich but rare diet (such as protein-rich carcasses or ripe fruits) that can usually be obtained only by searching a large area. Their findings provided the strongest statistical support for the conclusion that increasingly scattered, solitary females drove males to solicit single partners. This theory would hold true in humans if monogamy arose in hominins before our tendency to dwell in groups did. Monogamy also originated from the threat of lethal violence toward offspring. If a rival male challenged or supplanted a dominant male in a community, the usurper could kill infants that he had not sired. Mothers would stop lactating and start ovulating again, giving the marauding male a chance to spread his genes. To prevent infanticide, a female would select a male ally who could defend her and her baby. The biology and behavior of modern primates add some plausibility to the conclusion that infanticide is a spur to monogamy. Primates are uniquely at risk for infanticide: they have big brains that need time to develop, which leaves babies dependent and vulnerable for long periods after birth.

Ask the arts council they’ll totally give it

Just ask an AI instead

Vic Reeves would appreciate that service

😭😭😭

Standard deviation is actually the measure of the spread of data. You are thinking of a normal distribution, where about 68% of the data lies within one standard deviation of the mean. Standard deviation isn’t a set value; it varies depending on the data set.

@@PocketRocket_ Ahh, I did stats several years ago and didn’t entirely remember the specifics. But I think you could probably say that the straight population can be modelled under a Normal Distribution, under which case, 68% if that standard deviation does make sense. Although do correct me if my wording isn’t quite right.

OMG I'm straight!

@@54032Zepolwhen did u find out

Assume 100% of the straight population (or a perfectly representative sample) watches this video and the curve is normal

Awww. I believe that _you_ believe it, sweetie.

so if you were straight but did a U-turn, but still going straight, are you still really straight?

yous really took away the wrong message from a comment of me calling myself weird lmao. idk how me saying I'm straight is somehow an attack on gay people

same dude!!!! are you the socially acceptable kind of weird or 1960s techno fan weird though (i am both so 🥳🥳🥳🥳🥳)

@@saltedmutton7269 I mean I do unironically like Jean Jacques Perrey I guess lmao

Aboutaboutaboutaboutaboutaboutaboutabotaboutboutboatboatbebesiitaabouttoutoitourslxoz🫠🫠🫠

meme arrows

​@@7EEVEE fun fact: it comes from 4chan!

@@seeker296 that's not funny, my brother died that way.

Gripping while watching this.

Disappointed my parents

I nodded to a guy in the room and he nodded back. We had a mutual understanding of being basic straight and went on with our day

Buying a used car, not because I couldn't afford a new one, but because a website told me it was the most financially responsible thing to do.

Shared a hot tub with 3 other SDSs - Standard Deviation Straights

We are playing both sides, it feels so mischievous.

yeah same I made myself so hungry with this vid

That’s like the entire point, my guy

Life is tough for many people whatever their sexual orientation. Straight people are lonely too. Luckily you live in a time when it's finally OK to be gay. So just put yourself out there to find like minded people. With love from Spain.❤

@@Natalia-pc7fmhave you heard of Florida?

​@@Natalia-pc7fm "It's finally OK to be gay" It is begrudgingly tolerated by some people and some governments in some parts of the world. The best I can hope to see in my lifetime is an increase in the rate of tolerance, specifically legalization and legal protection in more countries; widespread acceptance will likely never come to pass.

@@danielflanard8274 I’m gay and 59. You have no idea what a paradise ‘begrudging toleration’ is, compared to the bad old days

@@davidr7819 Excuse my zoomer doom & gloom, I know that the era of tolerance we are living in is unprecedented. The amount of progression just since I was born is staggering.

Boost plz

Always!

The most straight response ever

Did you just never went to school or are lgbt people just that delusional ?

​@@mechanicalsilence1have you read a history book?

@@corvoattano44 my comment got deleted what did i write ?

the way he ran away at the end only solidified it further

you cheating on beavis now huh