X-critic also against Transsexuals [Archive] - HungAngels

GroobyKrissy

12-27-2012, 10:00 PM

I think what is really sad about this whole thing is simply that the company (x-critic), in MY opinion, just aren't willing to own up and be honest about it. I would have more respect for them if, last week, they had just said, "We made a conscious decision, based upon our readership, to not include/cover the genre." Instead, in my conversation with them, they repeatedly said that the genre was considered fairly... which turns out to be a big lie after all (who would've guessed).

So, all this mock outrage about having their nomination process questioned now seems reasonable after all. Who would've thunk?

That's what really, really irritates me... is just the mock outrage when being questioned, and then having it thrown back in your face as if you're being a spoiled child crying about spilled milk... and then being called whiners... and then being called aggressively negative... and then... and then... idiots.

Wendy Summers

12-27-2012, 10:06 PM

GroobyKrissy

12-27-2012, 10:10 PM

I suggest we all stay out of the conversation - I think Grooby is handling it well. In fact everything proposed so far shows a class act on Grooby's part.

Oh, I'm done with this. I have little patience for stupidity and x-critic's twitter spokesperson has no capacity for reasonable conversation at all. I had my say last week and obviously, little can be done at this point.

GroobySteven

12-27-2012, 10:13 PM

Oh, I'm done with this. I have little patience for stupidity and x-critic's twitter spokesperson has no capacity for reasonable conversation at all. I had my say last week and obviously, little can be done at this point.

Does anyone actually know who their owner/spokesperson is?

MrsKellyPierce

12-27-2012, 10:15 PM

Not shocking..

And how is it bullying asking for the proper pronouns of how a performer lives their lives?

GroobyKrissy

12-27-2012, 10:16 PM

Does anyone actually know who their owner/spokesperson is?

Maybe Chris? I know they're Portland based... not sure of anything else.

Wendy Summers

12-27-2012, 10:17 PM

Does anyone actually know who their owner/spokesperson is?

Based on what I was told by some "birdies" during the first discussion, the @xcritic account is the owner.

MrsKellyPierce

12-27-2012, 10:19 PM

Don Houston

LibertyHarkness

12-27-2012, 10:21 PM

MrsKellyPierce

12-27-2012, 10:23 PM

Wendy Summers

12-27-2012, 10:26 PM

who actually cares about xcritic anyway just another wanky review website at end of day .. just another parasitic company trying to make affiliate sales off the back of reviews of content blah blah guinea bahh ...

Why do people even give a rats ass about this bell ends ..

There is countless mediums for studios/models etc to use to promote/get reviews etc one site like that is hardly any issue ..

To an extent you & Seanchai are right - the IAFD is the bigger fish to fry.

This thread was more to highlight that unlike last week's issue with xcritic, this time the website's true colors have been shown.

AmyDaly

12-27-2012, 10:30 PM

Is the owner's name Don Houston by any chance? Because thats what it sure seems like:

http://www.xcritic.com/review/37932/vanity-the-true-history-of-she-male-cock/

Read this review on xcritic and you see what I mean.

WendyWilliams

12-27-2012, 10:31 PM

Don Houston is NOT the owner

Owners name is Chris and he isnt based out of Portland anymore.

GroobyKrissy

12-27-2012, 10:32 PM

who actually cares about xcritic anyway just another wanky review website at end of day .. just another parasitic company trying to make affiliate sales off the back of reviews of content blah blah guinea bahh ...

Why do people even give a rats ass about this bell ends ..

There is countless mediums for studios/models etc to use to promote/get reviews etc one site like that is hardly any issue ..

I disagree with this sentiment entirely for the simple reason that when you ignore what one company is doing, it makes it easier for others to follow suit.

While I would agree that there are other various mediums to use as promotional vehicles, I also don't believe it is in the best interests of the TS community to simply ignore those who are actively participating in exclusion / discrimination on the basis of gender.

WendyWilliams

12-27-2012, 10:35 PM

Let me say I have dealt with Xcritic for years and I have NEVER had an issue with him and in fact he has took my side on reviews that had bad pronoun's etc. He has ok' every Interview I've submitted, allowed me to post my PR stuff, I have submitted company DVD's for review for years. I am truly shocked that he feels we are "bullying".

Of course I am not going to say he is "against" us however I can just simply stop contributing to his site and respect his opinion.

GroobySteven

12-27-2012, 10:38 PM

Thanks for the link Amy, I'd say "Don Houston" clearly has some issues with transgenders:

"Foreword: The following review deals with the TS, tranny, transsexual, or other term used to describe those who were born men but took great efforts to become more feminine through implants, hormone shots, surgical procedures, chemicals, or other means. Most of them prefer to be called females and the related descriptors (some taking great offense when referred to as “him”, “he”, “dude”, etc.). They and their followers also tend to be very sensitive to being called “gay” or having their self-described gender identity questioned in any way. For the purposes of this review, it should be noted that I use labels in the descriptive sense only, my comments more in keeping with describing the basic elements for a general audience rather than one dedicated to the genre or specific performers, those truly into the subject likely already having the source material of these compiled scenes. If you are really into the TS genre and have yet to watch most of Joey’s releases in the field, you have been missing out as he is usually widely regarded as the best in the field, his mainstream credentials giving him a greater audience to spread the word for those even slightly interested."

One of XCritic's reviewers (and I know he reads here occassionally) "Apache Warrior" is a good reviewer and a good advocate for transgender erotica, I hope he can weigh in with the editors somewhat.

Wendy Summers

12-27-2012, 10:40 PM

AmyDaly

12-27-2012, 10:43 PM

Of course I am not going to say he is "against" us however I can just simply stop contributing to his site and respect his opinion.

I really don't think they are against us either...I just don't get why they are supporting these guys. Way before this was even an issue, I wrote to them over a year ago asking them to change it in which they promptly responded with no. Recently, many people emailed them and asked them to fix it and they said no. They could of easily changed us all to female like many other sites do which would of been not insulting anyone.

I honestly think that IAFD refused was not only because of the work it would require, but because of their own personal opinions against transwomen. It is sad to see XCritic say we are bullying them when they have been being asked for over a year now to fix it and only responding with No that we were born men, so that's what it will stay as.

That review by Don Houston who sounds more like hes doing a review for Porn Wiki Leaks than Xcritic by the way.

MrsKellyPierce

12-27-2012, 10:44 PM

They feel the article on AVN that was posted was "bullying"

Wendy Summers

12-27-2012, 10:45 PM

Ok - so against was strong language - got it... lol

MrsKellyPierce

12-27-2012, 11:01 PM

They also feel that even if they separated the category to ts/transsexual genres

That the "pronoun committee" Don's words...would be mad about that too. Since they are not labeled female.

Don also said "He is old school if you have and use your penis, your male"

But he does feel there should be a category for ts just like there is for gay genres...

So they have the option not to look at trans porn/stars when searching females..

But like he said he believes girls wouldn't be happy with that and still scream discrimination..

He also said "If Steven spent more time advertising and getting involved with getting his dvds etc reviewed it may bring more of a transsexual audience, which would push the views for our type of porn"

riccadevia

12-27-2012, 11:06 PM

GroobySteven

12-27-2012, 11:12 PM

He also said "If Steven spent more time advertising and getting involved with getting his dvds etc reviewed it may bring more of a transsexual audience, which would push the views for our type of porn"

Where did he say this?

Wendy Summers

12-27-2012, 11:14 PM

I plead complete ignorance on this issue, even after reading the entire thread I am left with this understanding, that the transgender performer's community as a whole want to be 'tagged' as female in descriptions pertaining to awards consideration by various committees? Am I way off base on this? WOOF-WOOF!! Throw me a bone please ladies (no pun intended).

Sorry, most of this is transpiring off website.

There are a few different issues:
1) IAFD (separate from xcritic) runs a DB where TS performers are listed as male. There have been several requests made to either change this or remove TSs from the Db entirely for at least a year.
2) XCritic's Fan Voting Awards announced last week did not include any TS performers or content. There have been varying explanations as to why. A number of us raised concerns over that last week
3) AVN published an article which called out IAFD for their stance.
4) XCritic Tweeted their support of IAFD and called the political pressure "bullying".

Hilarity ensued.

MrsKellyPierce

12-27-2012, 11:16 PM

Where did he say this?
Sent you a private message

GroobySteven

12-27-2012, 11:24 PM

Sent you a private message

Thanks Kelly.
A bit pathetic when a review magazine suggests that if more TS companies spend money with them, they may consider changing the terminology to the proper one.

riccadevia

12-27-2012, 11:24 PM

Sorry, most of this is transpiring off website.

There are a few different issues:
1) IAFD (separate from xcritic) runs a DB where TS performers are listed as male. There have been several requests made to either change this or remove TSs from the Db entirely for at least a year.
2) XCritic's Fan Voting Awards announced last week did not include any TS performers or content. There have been varying explanations as to why. A number of us raised concerns over that last week
3) AVN published an article which called out IAFD for their stance.
4) XCritic Tweeted their support of IAFD and called the political pressure "bullying".

Hilarity ensued.

Thank you so much Wendy, I'm enlightened! :Bowdown:

Short, consise, and factual...my favorite!

GroobySteven

12-27-2012, 11:36 PM

XCritic ‏@xcritic (https://twitter.com/xcritic) @GroobySteven (https://twitter.com/GroobySteven) A vocal few aggressively attack on behalf of a silent majority. Calling someone with a penis "he" is not degrading or bigoted.

There you girls. Straight from the donkey's mouth.

WendyWilliams

12-27-2012, 11:45 PM

Well I will no longer be wasting money on sending DVD's for review or submitting Interviews and I hope other companies do the same.

GroobySteven

12-28-2012, 12:21 AM

Well I will no longer be wasting money on sending DVD's for review or submitting Interviews and I hope other companies do the same.

I'm not sure if we still do - but we're stopping. We stopped sending press releases when they said we had to pay for them (for a press release?). They could easily turn some revenue on that site by putting in a few good affiliate programs but I think they're clearly small minded on both business and their thinking.
I actually have no idea of how much readership they even have, I'd never heard of them until a year or so ago when the PR person at the time suggested we send to them.

It's a shame because I think over-all they're probably good eggs - but that quotes above show that they're either incredibly ignorant or just don't care about alienating a whole bunch of people. I think the owner/editor has just became obstructive as he didn't like being called out in public.

Fuck it - bigger fish.

TSPornFan

12-28-2012, 01:14 AM

Just fucking sad.

For those who missed the drama last week, Xcritic entirely ignored transsexuals in their "fan awards" and claimed the work just wasn't good enough.

A number of us called foul and the owners of xcritic claimed it was not a slight and that they were supporters of our genre.

Now today, when AVN published an article on the AIFD situation xcritic has come out in support of them AND is now insisting they are going to stop covering our genre.

https://twitter.com/xcritic/status/284379753266429952

At least we've seen their true colors... sad.

I know I am going to get a lot of heat for this. I think X-critic has a point about the quality of TS porn films. TS porn is a joke. TS Seduction, Devil's Films, and Reality Junkies are the only companies that produce quality TS porn films. Their scenes have up to date video quality. Everyone else is way too behind in video quality. Most companies are way too cheap. Their production sets are way too cheap. The scene sets are cheap.

The fact that Shemale Strokers is nominated for an AVN is bullshit. I've been a member! Their photo and video quality is terrible.

Another problem is that the top girls rarely appear for most companies because the companies are too cheap to buy them at good rates. We want Kimber James, Kelly Shore, and Yasmin Lee at other sites other than their own. Pay these women their fair share! This also affects the quality of TS porn. People want to see the best. This is expected in porn. You don't see straight porn going for 5th best like you do in TS porn.

TS porn doesn't have any standards in terms of model quality. Anyone can be shoot in TS porn. Hell, some sites cheat members by shooting a TV. Most TS women who enter porn are just starting out and do not have the look to be in porn.

However, I do agree with the TS women and fans about how they are incorrectly labeled in the database. They should be labeled as Transsexuals, not as gay men. They are not men. Show them some respect.

MrsKellyPierce

12-28-2012, 01:31 AM

I just got this from Don - I blacked out certain parts

giovanni_hotel

12-28-2012, 02:14 AM

Big problem, easy solution.
Transphobia is still real apparently and it's unfortunate business professionals who work in the adult industry don't bother wasting their time to educate themselves.

TSMichelleAustin

12-28-2012, 04:44 AM

I just got email from iafd.com they posted a blog and are changing:

http://blog.iafd.com/2012/12/27/an-open-letter-to-avn-and-the-transgender-transexual-community/

MrsKellyPierce

12-28-2012, 05:12 AM

I just got email from iafd.com they posted a blog and are changing:

http://blog.iafd.com/2012/12/27/an-open-letter-to-avn-and-the-transgender-transexual-community/
Good job Michelle!

mac.B

12-28-2012, 06:28 PM

Just fucking sad.

For those who missed the drama last week, Xcritic entirely ignored transsexuals in their "fan awards" and claimed the work just wasn't good enough.

.

I believe they said that but you dont think so? These sites/producers make all their money off the fact that we want to see the girls but are lacking on the actual product. Dudes shouldnt have to debate what site theyre going to join and pray that their money isnt wasted on shitty camera angles, poor quality videos, highly anticipated girls in scenes where all they do is walk around in lingerie, girls not getting fucked, lame positions, poor direction, etc.

There needs to be a serious overhaul in quality of product in this genre of people are just going to stop buying from these weak sites all together.

Look at how Extremeladyboys.com at 40.00/mon and LadyboyGold.com at 30.00/mon rarely offer any discounts. They have a steady fan base b/c they offer a quality product. One hardcore one solo per week. The scenes are well produced and the look great.
These are the only two sites where I know what I getting all the time. What they do should be the standard.

Wendy Summers

12-28-2012, 06:44 PM

TSPornFan

12-28-2012, 09:07 PM

I believe they said that but you dont think so? These sites/producers make all their money off the fact that we want to see the girls but are lacking on the actual product. Dudes shouldnt have to debate what site theyre going to join and pray that their money isnt wasted on shitty camera angles, poor quality videos, highly anticipated girls in scenes where all they do is walk around in lingerie, girls not getting fucked, lame positions, poor direction, etc.

There needs to be a serious overhaul in quality of product in this genre of people are just going to stop buying from these weak sites all together.

Look at how Extremeladyboys.com at 40.00/mon and LadyboyGold.com at 30.00/mon rarely offer any discounts. They have a steady fan base b/c they offer a quality product. One hardcore one solo per week. The scenes are well produced and the look great.
These are the only two sites where I know what I getting all the time. What they do should be the standard.

I agree and disagree. I don't think Extremeladyboys and LadyboyGold set the standards. TS Seduction, Reality Junkies, and Devil's Films have much better video quality than the sites you listed.

You don't know how to shop for porn. No one should be paying $40 a month for any site. There are discounts everywhere. You can get Devil's Films and Reality Junkies memberships for $5 a month and their TS porn has good quality. You can get a TS Seduction membership for $18 at certain review sites and blogs.

I'm not saying all TS porn is technically great... hell, my own content is grind house level quality -as in is there is no quality LOL. I agree most of TS porn won't stack up for many reasons.

But that being said there are moments of brilliance out there: Nica Noelle's Transromantic film is one of them. Xcritic's own reviewer raved about Amy's performance in that. If we pick through all the work generated in the past year there's other stellar examples out there. I'm not saying TSs should have dominated the list or had a strong showing, but nothing? That I had concerns over.

TS porn doesn't deserve coverage. Like Mac B said the product needs a MAJOR overhaul in quality and production. The quality in TS porn is a joke.

Remember last year when everyone was so excited for the first ever TS Parody movie featuring TS Foxxy? That was such false advertising. one scene out of 4 was actually focused on the Parody. While the other scenes were just a bunch of old scenes put in the DVD to make it 2 hours. Reallly? Really?

There is way too much solo content, and not enough hardcore content in TS porn. That's another reason why some people do not want to cover TS porn. Bailey Jay was a joke. However, TS porn doesn't have any standards so she won AVN two years in a role for providing solo and POV content. Straight men who buy porn want hardcore content. We always hear producers saying that straight men want TS porn. However, the type of content they want isn't being produced.

GroobySteven

12-28-2012, 09:13 PM

TSPornFan

12-28-2012, 09:32 PM

You talk such shit Franklin. I've said this multiple times, YOU do not represent EVERYBODY buying or wanting TS porn, so don't speak for everyone. By all means speak for yourself but leave it there because the facts speak for themselves - and you are incorrect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd9OW4sAlIE

Sometimes you remind me little bit of Tomcat.

You're full shit. I can speak for everyone. Straight men WANT hardcore scenes. They do NOT want solo porn. Today very few straight solo sites and DVDs are made. Twistys is the only successful straight solo site. We want hardcore scenes. The top porn sites like Brazzers, Reality Kings, Naughty America, etc only shoot hardcore content because that is what straight men want.

The only reason why you're bitching at me is because Grooby is like most TS porn companies. Grooby is too damn cheap. The video quality is far below average. The overall model quality is bad. You even said it yourself that you weren't going to book Yasmin Lee because of her rates. Most TS fans would rather see Yasmin Lee and Kelly Shore before ever looking at 99% of the TS women I see on Shemale Yum.

Wendy Summers

12-28-2012, 09:33 PM

TS porn doesn't deserve coverage. Like Mac B said the product needs a MAJOR overhaul in quality and production. The quality in TS porn is a joke.

There is way too much solo content, and not enough hardcore content in TS porn. That's another reason why some people do not want to cover TS porn. Bailey Jay was a joke. However, TS porn doesn't have any standards so she won AVN two years in a role for providing solo and POV content. Straight men who buy porn want hardcore content. We always hear producers saying that straight men want TS porn. However, the type of content they want isn't being produced.

Actually Franklin I'm finding the opposite on these points.

My sales have grown to the point I'll be putting more money into content for my second year. I asked my website members if they wanted me to add two more solo sets each month or to change one of my existing solos to a hardcore. My member response has overwhelmingly been add more solos. Pro advice has been to do the hard cores so I haven't made a final decision what direction I'll move, but it's worth noting the fan response.

Similarly, I track sales by set so I understand what content is driving new sales for me. My best selling scenes are all shot by the least skilled photographer/ videographer. You can also look to C4s for more support. Look through their top selling studios and clips and you'll notice some serious dogs quality wise. Are there some folks like you who are videophiles? Sure. But the vast majority of folks care about getting off don't care about high end specs on video quality.

TSPornFan

12-28-2012, 09:46 PM

Actually Franklin I'm finding the opposite on these points.

My sales have grown to the point I'll be putting more money into content for my second year. I asked my website members if they wanted me to add two more solo sets each month or to change one of my existing solos to a hardcore. My member response has overwhelmingly been add more solos. Pro advice has been to do the hard cores so I haven't made a final decision what direction I'll move, but it's worth noting the fan response.

Similarly, I track sales by set so I understand what content is driving new sales for me. My best selling scenes are all shot by the least skilled photographer/ videographer. You can also look to C4s for more support. Look through their top selling studios and clips and you'll notice some serious dogs quality wise. Are there some folks like you who are videophiles? Sure. But the vast majority of folks care about getting off don't care about high end specs on video quality.

Where is your poll?

Do you remember Hannah Sweden? http://hannahsweden.com/

Her site only featured solo content. What happen to it? She said she wasn't making money. Why? Her members wanted hardcore scenes and she didn't want to do hardcore content. Her site went under. I respect her for not doing hardcore because that is her decision to make.

C4s?

GroobyKrissy

12-28-2012, 09:46 PM

Actually Franklin I'm finding the opposite on these points.

My sales have grown to the point I'll be putting more money into content for my second year. I asked my website members if they wanted me to add two more solo sets each month or to change one of my existing solos to a hardcore. My member response has overwhelmingly been add more solos. Pro advice has been to do the hard cores so I haven't made a final decision what direction I'll move, but it's worth noting the fan response.

Similarly, I track sales by set so I understand what content is driving new sales for me. My best selling scenes are all shot by the least skilled photographer/ videographer. You can also look to C4s for more support. Look through their top selling studios and clips and you'll notice some serious dogs quality wise. Are there some folks like you who are videophiles? Sure. But the vast majority of folks care about getting off don't care about high end specs on video quality.

A ditto on this for me... and another voice that says Franklin is full of crap.

I polled the Members of my site a little while ago because of some server space issues about featuring hardcore (tends to be longer) or solo content. The response was OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of keeping HD quality on the solo videos and doing more of those rather than featuring more hardcore content.

I have built an entire site and entire career out of the 'amateur' look and feel and it remains competitive and popular.

EDIT: BEFORE YOU ASK: The poll was internal (for Members only) and the data wasn't saved. Take my word for it.

GroobyKrissy

12-28-2012, 09:49 PM

Where is your poll?

Do you remember Hannah Sweden? http://hannahsweden.com/

Her site only featured solo content. What happen to it? She said she wasn't making money. Why? Her members wanted hardcore scenes and she didn't want to do hardcore content. Her site went under. I respect her for not doing hardcore because that is her decision to make.

C4s?

Not likely the reason. I follow all the amateur dough sites for promotional purposes, but better to cite a reason than nothing at all. There was little new content going out for her... Members probably dropped like flies because of the recycled scenes (many updates were simply different camera angles of the same scene).

Wendy Summers

12-28-2012, 10:26 PM

Where is your poll?

Do you remember Hannah Sweden? http://hannahsweden.com/

Her site only featured solo content. What happen to it? She said she wasn't making money. Why? Her members wanted hardcore scenes and she didn't want to do hardcore content. Her site went under. I respect her for not doing hardcore because that is her decision to make.

C4s?

Internal to my website - feel free to join Franklin so you can let me know what you want - I'd love to have you yell at me regularly LOL.

See... here's the thing with solo websites doing solo sets... too many models do the same boring shit over... and over... and over again. One key to a solo website is freshness... multi-girl websites achieve it with new faces, we need to do it with what we shoot and how we shoot it. As I understand it some of her issue was freshness of content.

C4S - Clips 4 Sale - it'a primarily fetish driven but ala carte is clearly the way Industry sales are headed.

GroobySteven

12-28-2012, 10:41 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd9OW4sAlIE

Sometimes you remind me little bit of Tomcat.

You're full shit. I can speak for everyone. Straight men WANT hardcore scenes. They do NOT want solo porn. Today very few straight solo sites and DVDs are made. Twistys is the only successful straight solo site. We want hardcore scenes. The top porn sites like Brazzers, Reality Kings, Naughty America, etc only shoot hardcore content because that is what straight men want.

The only reason why you're bitching at me is because Grooby is like most TS porn companies. Grooby is too damn cheap. The video quality is far below average. The overall model quality is bad. You even said it yourself that you weren't going to book Yasmin Lee because of her rates. Most TS fans would rather see Yasmin Lee and Kelly Shore before ever looking at 99% of the TS women I see on Shemale Yum.

Get the fuck out of here - YOU are so full of shit. There are dozens of successful solo model sites, you idiot.
I don't need to bitch at you. Grooby is certainly not cheap and video quality, might be below some of the higher end mainstream sites but certainly not below average.
Yasmin decided to work solely for Kink and Kelly Shore last shot for us. Our models are fantastic, practically ever single TS model working today, has featured on one of our sites you imbecile.

If Grooby sites are so bad quality - then why are they still the most successful sites and still growing. It's because they're simply, the best at what they do. Why do we do non-hardcore model sites - because so many people WANT that. Why do we do hardcore model sites - because also people WANT that.

If the sites are so bad, how come you've spent $100's on them this year alone?

loveboof

12-28-2012, 11:19 PM

You just delete franklin's post?!

What a fucking joke...

GroobySteven

12-28-2012, 11:23 PM

You just delete franklin's post?!

What a fucking joke...

Yeah I deleted it - total slander, calling girls out.
I'm happy to give a forum to answer any questions and feedback but not just going to allow my company or my models to be attacked by his bi-polarism. Just a few weeks ago he was pm'ing me thanking me for reshooting a model.

He's been completely wrong on almost every assertation he's made regarding the industry and refuses to listen to people who have the cold stats and facts. If he wants to ask specific questions - or make a point, he can start a new thread on it and I'll answer it there, when I have the time. If you have a problem with that, you can fuck off also. If you have a problem with that, you can fuck off also.

It's a complete derailment of what this post was about.

Wendy Summers

12-28-2012, 11:28 PM

You just delete franklin's post?!

What a fucking joke...

Seanchai was right - that was a little insulting

mac.B

12-28-2012, 11:31 PM

I agree and disagree. I don't think Extremeladyboys and LadyboyGold set the standards. TS Seduction, Reality Junkies, and Devil's Films have much better video quality than the sites you listed.

You don't know how to shop for porn. No one should be paying $40 a month for any site. There are discounts everywhere. You can get Devil's Films and Reality Junkies memberships for $5 a month and their TS porn has good quality. You can get a TS Seduction membership for $18 at certain review sites and blogs.

I didnt say that those sites set the standards I said they should. Again their formula works- one solo, one behind the scenes and one hardcore per week.

As for the quality of video I like Ts Playground above all. I think that that site is overall the best looking. What I was saying in reference to those two ladyboy sites was the fact that the video quality was good enough to be enjoyable by todays HD standards.

I wasnt complaining about the price either. What I was actually saying was that because of what those sites offer and because of the quality of their product, they have a fan base that allows for them to charge high without offering very many (if any) discounts. I got Shemale.xxx for 20.00 a couple weeks ago and if I didnt see that price I probably wouldnt be a member now.

mac.B

12-28-2012, 11:46 PM

I'm not saying all TS porn is technically great... hell, my own content is grind house level quality -as in is there is no quality LOL. I agree most of TS porn won't stack up for many reasons.

But that being said there are moments of brilliance out there: Nica Noelle's Transromantic film is one of them. Xcritic's own reviewer raved about Amy's performance in that. If we pick through all the work generated in the past year there's other stellar examples out there. I'm not saying TSs should have dominated the list or had a strong showing, but nothing? That I had concerns over.

The forbidden love film was good but with so much sub-par product out there its not hard to see why they may have written off the genre completely.

Porn has a specific function. Porn is supposed to titillate, its supposed to excite, its supposed to give a second hand view inside certain worlds/lifesyles etc. Strait porn, for the most part, does just that. Ts porn, however, only seems to annoy and tease.

I've only seen the trailer for Transromantic but it seemed very well produced from the video quality to the action itself. If more scenes were done like this, quality and quantity, then I think that the genre would be hard to deny.

TSPornFan

12-28-2012, 11:48 PM

Yeah I deleted it - total slander, calling girls out.
I'm happy to give a forum to answer any questions and feedback but not just going to allow my company or my models to be attacked by his bi-polarism. Just a few weeks ago he was pm'ing me thanking me for reshooting a model.

He's been completely wrong on almost every assertation he's made regarding the industry and refuses to listen to people who have the cold stats and facts. If he wants to ask specific questions - or make a point, he can start a new thread on it and I'll answer it there, when I have the time. If you have a problem with that, you can fuck off also. If you have a problem with that, you can fuck off also.

It's a complete derailment of what this post was about.

Haha! Thanks for proofing my point. All of your producers and directors were the same. I am disappointed in you. I thought you were somewhat different than Tomcat. You're just like him. You demand people to like your content. If they don't then you're upset. You don't ask people how to make your content better. Instead you cry and demand everyone to like your content. How sad.

I don't have to think your that most models are good quality. I do not have think that your sites have good video quality. I never slander anyone. I said your sites' model and video quality are bad. I also pointed out how you were so wrong about Yasmin Lee only working for Kink.

I didnt say that those sites set the standards I said they should. Again their formula works- one solo, one behind the scenes and one hardcore per week.

As for the quality of video I like Ts Playground above all. I think that that site is overall the best looking. What I was saying in reference to those two ladyboy sites was the fact that the video quality was good enough to be enjoyable by todays HD standards.

I wasnt complaining about the price either. What I was actually saying was that because of what those sites offer and because of the quality of their product, they have a fan base that allows for them to charge high without offering very many (if any) discounts. I got Shemale.xxx for 20.00 a couple weeks ago and if I didnt see that price I probably wouldnt be a member now.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say you were complaining. I was saying you can find discounts for just about every site if you look in the right places. :wiggle:

I do agree that TS Playground has very nice quality. I just hope they start shooting Americans again.

WendyWilliams

12-28-2012, 11:50 PM

Hmm my Solo DVD sales (T-Girls Solo Series) has been amazing. In fact I was just asked to bump a hardcore release to put out a #4 because of buyers asking for a new one.

mac.B

12-28-2012, 11:57 PM

Hmm my Solo DVD sales (T-Girls Solo Series) has been amazing. In fact I was just asked to bump a hardcore release to put out a #4 because of buyers asking for a new one.

What do you consider to be amazing?

TSPornFan

12-28-2012, 11:58 PM

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 12:05 AM

Seanchai was right - that was a little insulting

Boo hoo hoo! I feel so insulted. Someone thinks most of my models are not attractive like Mia Iseballa, Kimber James, and Vanitty. I am so insulted! He must find my girls attractive! He must think my videos have great quality! People aren't allowed to think differently than me! They must like me and my sites!

WendyWilliams

12-29-2012, 12:07 AM

What do you consider to be amazing?

Im not going to share my sales number for my Production Company LOL however my out the door numbers and reorders have been the same if not higher for my solo DVD's then a few of the TS hardcore releases by me and other TS Directors under my distribution.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 12:12 AM

Im not going to share my sales number for my Production Company LOL however my out the door numbers and reorders have been the same if not higher for my solo DVD's then a few of the TS hardcore releases by me and other TS Directors under my distribution.

I think it is too hard to compare solo and hardcore sales based on many reasons. The most important reasons are what I am going to focus on. A lot of people like Bailey Jay but she doesn't do normal hardcore content. So people's best option is to see her in a solo video.

Who were in the solo videos and who were in the hardcore videos? If the most popular girls are in the solo videos than it stand to reason why those videos sold better. If the hardcore videos had poor quality models or less popular models then they may sell less.

Who does the numbers/stats for your sites? A true researcher would require the same models to be in the solo dvd and in the hardcore dvd for a proper comparison.

WendyWilliams

12-29-2012, 12:17 AM

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 12:18 AM

mac.B

12-29-2012, 12:20 AM

I was just bout to say that. Another good example is Keira Verga. How many people want to see her do hardcore but settle for joining her site just to see her walk around in a neglige.

mac.B

12-29-2012, 12:25 AM

I don't mind criticism and I'll answer it a point at a time ... but what's the point, you absolutely refuse to believe that you can possibly be incorrect in anything you say about porn. I have the facts and the numbers. Why is a site that is mainly solo (Shemale Yum) more successful than other hardcore sites featuring the same models.

YOU are WRONG!!

Brand loyalty, familiarity perhaps. Regular coka-cola will always sell more than its subsidiaries.

Not to be combative but I think I know why that is...

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 02:30 AM

Franklin I own a DVD PRODUCTION COMPANY, I am speaking of DVD sales not my website sales.

Number/Stats are my SALES , how many stores order, how many reorders, how much VOD sales, how many out the door etc. Ive done this 11 years and had my DVD company for 8, I assure you I know what Im speaking about when it comes to SALES as I get the numbers monthly from my distributor.

You're not understanding what I am saying at all. A stats researcher would not accept your information. As I said properly done research requires that the same girls in the solo dvd must also be in the hardcore dvd to compare them.

If you release a solo DVD featuring Kimber James, Bailey Jay, and Sarina Valentina then you should expect better sales than a hardcore DVD featuring less popular models. You can't compare the two. Your data is invalid.

That is just basic research.

I don't mind criticism and I'll answer it a point at a time ... but what's the point, you absolutely refuse to believe that you can possibly be incorrect in anything you say about porn. I have the facts and the numbers. Why is a site that is mainly solo (Shemale Yum) more successful than other hardcore sites featuring the same models.

YOU are WRONG!!

You're not open to criticism. I said your site Shemale Yum has very bad quality models. You lied and said that I slandered them. You also stated that you do not want your company to be criticized.

Yeah I deleted it - total slander, calling girls out.
I'm happy to give a forum to answer any questions and feedback but not just going to allow my company or my models to be attacked by his bi-polarism.

You say solo scenes are more popular and are downloaded much more. Well duh! There is so much solo content that its going to be downloaded much more. You thousands of solo scenes compared to a few hardcore scenes. For example You can't compare 1,000 solo scenes' downloads to 100 hardcore scene's downloads(not going for exact numbers). That's terrible data and research. This is learned at an undergraduate level.

Porn producers also say that straight men buy TS porn. Something is wrong with this data. Straight men do not watch straight solo porn. They watch hardcore porn. Hardcore porn is in high demand among straight men. That's why there are very few to none straight solo sites. It doesn't sell well.

WendyWilliams

12-29-2012, 02:32 AM

Like arguing with the town drunk LOL

giovanni_hotel

12-29-2012, 02:36 AM

I think common sense says that a top tgirl model in a hardcore vid will sell more than the same girl in a solo jack vid.

WendyWilliams

12-29-2012, 02:40 AM

You guys are so correct, what does Seanchai or I know about Dvd sales or websites.

Back to subject at hand.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 03:05 AM

You're not understanding what I am saying at all. A stats researcher would not accept your information. As I said properly done research requires that the same girls in the solo dvd must also be in the hardcore dvd to compare them.

If you release a solo DVD featuring Kimber James, Bailey Jay, and Sarina Valentina then you should expect better sales than a hardcore DVD featuring less popular models. You can't compare the two. Your data is invalid.

That is just basic research.

You're not open to criticism. I said your site Shemale Yum has very bad quality models. You lied and said that I slandered them. You also stated that you do not want your company to be criticized.

You say solo scenes are more popular and are downloaded much more. Well duh! There is so much solo content that its going to be downloaded much more. You thousands of solo scenes compared to a few hardcore scenes. For example You can't compare 1,000 solo scenes' downloads to 100 hardcore scene's downloads(not going for exact numbers). That's terrible data and research. This is learned at an undergraduate level.

Porn producers also say that straight men buy TS porn. Something is wrong with this data. Straight men do not watch straight solo porn. They watch hardcore porn. Hardcore porn is in high demand among straight men. That's why there are very few to none straight solo sites. It doesn't sell well.

Good lord you're a sanctimonious prick. If I wasn't out shooting a scene for my site at the moment and having to type this on my Surface, I'd shred your supposed logic and reduce you to a bumbling fool...oh wait, you've already done that last part.

Since I am not at my desktop with a proper keyboard, I'll just sum this up with three words: Dita Von Teese.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 03:06 AM

You guys are so correct, what does Seanchai or I know about Dvd sales or websites.

Back to subject at hand.

You don't know anything about basic research. What you have said is so wrong that it is not funny. Go to a college and tell them that you're comparing two different people in two different types of porn. One in solo and another person in a hardcore. They would tell you that your data does not prove that solo scenes sell better than hardcore scenes.

Has anybody from your production company went to college and taken both Statistics and Methods of Research courses?

tsdvdman

12-29-2012, 03:13 AM

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 03:16 AM

You don't know anything about basic research. What you have said is so wrong that it is not funny. Go to a college and tell them that you're comparing two different people in two different types of porn. One in solo and another person in a hardcore. They would tell you that your data does not prove that solo scenes sell better than hardcore scenes.

Has anybody from your production company went to college and taken both Statistics and Methods of Research courses?

Just stop with your REALLY annoying smugness about how "educated" you are. If you really want me to, I'll go through most any thread you've posted in and point out every grammatical error, word mis-usage, spelling mistake, and of course, GAPS IN LOGIC.

Consider just this Mr. Census:
You do the exact same thing that you accuse Wendy of doing, a point which I already made when we first tangled. It could be argued that when you compare a site like, say, TS Seduction and a site like, say, Shemale Yum; you're data is invalid. The sites are branded differently, use different stars, are marketed differently... in fact, just about everything about them is different!

OK, with long fingernails and a tablet keyboard that only took me fifteen minutes to type ��

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 03:20 AM

Just stop with your REALLY annoying smugness about how "educated" you are. If you really want me to, I'll go through most any thread you've posted in and point out every grammatical error, word mis-usage, spelling mistake, and of course, GAPS IN LOGIC.

Consider just this Mr. Census:
You do the exact same thing that you accuse Wendy of doing, a point which I already made when we first tangled. It could be argued that when you compare a site like, say, TS Seduction and a site like, say, Shemale Yum; you're data is invalid. The sites are branded differently, use different stars, are marketed differently... in fact, just about everything about them is different!

OK, with long fingernails and a tablet keyboard that only took me fifteen minutes to type ��

I'm just going to say this. You're very stupid. I'm not doing the same thing that Wendy did. I compared two companies' video quality. The samples are videos. Video quality and harcore/solo scenes are two different things. You can't compare them in the same manner. Wendy is improperly comparing solo dvds and hardcore dvds. Her sample has a major flaw. Neither dvd contains the same people. A correct sample must have the same girls in the solo dvd and in the hardcore dvd.

Please go to college. You're stupid.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 03:24 AM

Back to the original reason for the thread. I think you girls will never truly get taken serious because you don't have anyone at the top seriously advocating for you and your genre. Directors, CEO's, producers, "the suits" will only hear and listen to their peers..people on the same level as they are. I think they see your "reps" as a joke.
Most things get done while "smoozin"...and at extracurricular activities during industry events..etc. It's apparent that the couple of people you rely on to help get your issues addressed and your voices heard are much too busy policing comments on the forums and arguing with members who express opposing views about their websites...everyday..practically every thread.
I know it's hard to swallow ladies (no pun intended)..but think about it...who are the ones that are really getting pimped? It sure aint the one saying "everything is fine".."sales are up".."all my sites are doing well"...
Meanwhile..You are still escorting..WHY?..because the rent still has to get paid

Oh dear, you're back. I assume you are talking about myself? FYI - I'm the only non-TS producer/company owner who has any say at that level. The only one invited on panels, the only one asked for advice on the TS genre and the only one who knows anybody relevant in mainstream.
Why is that?
It's because I also the only one who advocates having open forums for discussion of TS porn in general, their own product, transgender lifestyle/politics and their websites. Don't try and twist your own personal prejudices against me to anything other than exactly what they are.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 03:26 AM

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 03:26 AM

Back to the original reason for the thread. I think you girls will never truly get taken serious because you don't have anyone at the top seriously advocating for you and your genre. Directors, CEO's, producers, "the suits" will only hear and listen to their peers..people on the same level as they are. I think they see your "reps" as a joke.
Most things get done while "smoozin"...and at extracurricular activities during industry events..etc. It's apparent that the couple of people you rely on to help get your issues addressed and your voices heard are much too busy policing comments on the forums and arguing with members who express opposing views about their websites...everyday..practically every thread.
I know it's hard to swallow ladies (no pun intended)..but think about it...who are the ones that are really getting pimped? It sure aint the one saying "everything is fine".."sales are up".."all my sites are doing well"...
Meanwhile..You are still escorting..WHY?..because the rent still has to get paid

Really great view of the girls you have there.

I understand what you're saying though and would partially agree...a very, very tiny part. The bigger problem is guys (such as yourself I'd assume based on previous conversations) who think that all girls in porn are stupid fluffs who deserve what they get. You're a consumer (assuming) but unwilling to actually take a stand when it comes to any type of topic with some actual seriousness to it. If all the guys who actually consumed TS porn were to write letters to companies such as those mentioned here, instead of the girls having to do it themselves, these issues would easily be things of the past. So, let's get down to what is really 'hard to swallow'... most consumers of TS porn are too wrapped up in their own insecurities, and too busy hiding in the shadows to do any of the girls any good.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 03:29 AM

You're WRONG. Listen to the producers. Solo sets in websites do sell. I have the stats on sites containing the same models in both hardcore and solo. Hardcore sells also but don't be such a self-obsessed ass, to think that what you say has any basis in fact, other than your own personal preferences and opinion.

I won't listen to producers until they properly compare the data. There are far too many issues with your samples and how you are comparing the two.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 03:34 AM

Oh dear, you're back. I assume you are talking about myself? FYI - I'm the only non-TS producer/company owner who has any say at that level. The only one invited on panels, the only one asked for advice on the TS genre and the only one who knows anybody relevant in mainstream.
Why is that?
It's because I also the only one who advocates having open forums for discussion of TS porn in general, their own product, transgender lifestyle/politics and their websites. Don't try and twist your own personal prejudices against me to anything other than exactly what they are.

Interesting.............why haven't SMC's owner and Shemale Stroker's own been invited to these panels? They've been a while for a long time as well and have success.

WendyWilliams

12-29-2012, 03:35 AM

Franklin this is the last time I respond to you as Im blocking you so I don't feel obligated to respond. I have a BA degree in Marketing/Communications and worked for the IRS for 4 years before transitioning so I am far from stupid.

I simply said that my solo DVD series SALES, nothing less and nothing more.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 03:36 AM

I'm just going to say this. You're very stupid. I'm not doing the same thing that Wendy did. I compared two companies' video quality. The samples are videos. Video quality and harcore/solo scenes are two different things. You can't compare them in the same manner. Wendy is improperly comparing solo dvds and hardcore dvds. Her sample has a major flaw. Neither dvd contains the same people. A correct sample must have the same girls in the solo dvd and in the hardcore dvd.

Please go to college. You're stupid.

I'm very well educated, thank you very much. Unlike you, I don't have to prove it by putting other people down.

The stupidity lies in the fact that you cannot take a simple line of reasoning and apply it to yourself. THAT is true stupidity.

Wendy's point is NOT flawed for the very (I thought) simple reason that she is speaking of RAW sales numbers...something which seems to have floated right over that thick head of yours. It was not a statement of 'better', it was empirical data that she has firsthand knowledge of.... where is your firsthand knowledge? You're taking her statements and attacking her data based upon a flawed argument from the start since you obviously didn't understand her original point. Probably couldn't see past that diploma hanging in your way.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 03:36 AM

You're not open to criticism. I said your site Shemale Yum has very bad quality models. You lied and said that I slandered them. You also stated that you do not want your company to be criticized.

Very bad models? Alyssa Adams, Hazel Tucker, Jenna Rachels, Sofia Ferreira, Sofia Sanders, Acadia Veneer, Angela Skye, Natalie Foxx, Brielle Bop, Cristen Cristensen, Alina Apple, Eva Cassini, Megan, Scarlett, Gianna Riviera, Valerie Daniels, Karissima, Yazlene Reyes, Annalise Rose, Kimora Jade, Danika Dreamz, Venus Lux, Texi Trap, Khloe Reyes, Valerie Alamond ...
Just a handful of models shown in THE LAST 10 WEEKS. Sure not every model is to everyone's taste - but that's the point, it's a site that appeals to many which is why it numbers members in the 1000's.

I don't want my company to be criticized, I strife to be the best and I think we attain it. As stated, I'm the only company to offer this sort of discourse and allow feedback but if you start getting too obnoxious (and you're almost there) then you can fuck off and find a property we don't own to bitch on. I answer feedback all the time and often make changes on it - I'm not going to change our model line-up - based on what "Franklin" thinks is right, you're one mouth and you don't represent more than one mouth.

You say solo scenes are more popular and are downloaded much more. Well duh! There is so much solo content that its going to be downloaded much more. You thousands of solo scenes compared to a few hardcore scenes. For example You can't compare 1,000 solo scenes' downloads to 100 hardcore scene's downloads(not going for exact numbers). That's terrible data and research. This is learned at an undergraduate level.

Huh? Where is the logic in that? If solo scenes were unpopular people wouldn't be joining Shemale Yum, LadyboyLadyboy, Black-Tgirls, Shemale Strokers, Bob'sTgirls etc and membership to Shemale Pornstar, Tgirlpinups, etc would be going through the roof. It's YOU that has the terrible research - it's purile. I'm not measuring 1000 downloads against 100 hardcores, I'm measuring ratios and choices on what people are joining and spending their money on - and THAT is the only relevant data to this business.

Porn producers also say that straight men buy TS porn. Something is wrong with this data. Straight men do not watch straight solo porn. They watch hardcore porn. Hardcore porn is in high demand among straight men. That's why there are very few to none straight solo sites. It doesn't sell well.

Absolute rubbish. I've friends who own some of the biggest solo site companies in the world. You are talking out of your arse, again.

lifeisfiction

12-29-2012, 03:39 AM

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 03:42 AM

Interesting.............why haven't SMC's owner and Shemale Stroker's own been invited to these panels? They've been a while for a long time as well and have success.

Go and ask them. I doubt SMC will particpate as they don't really get into the community in general but Sammi is a good guy. Maybe he's just too busy running his awesome website that has been around forever, made a fortune and contain almost all solo scenes! Shemale Strokers is a longtime sponsor of the Tranny Awards.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 03:45 AM

After reading this interesting and entertaining discussion, I do think the producers of content have to understand that they cannot please everyone. Its just the part of making something that people are able to judge. If someone thinks the models are not what they like to see or the standard of content is not up their standards, thats life. A person is entitled to their opinion. At the end of the day sales speaks to a products sucesss. With every product their is room for improvement and critisim helps exposes possilbe weakness. I think the hardest part of critism is taking is listen to the things we don't like.

You can never please everyone. You can try to please as many as you can, or you can focus on one specific group and try to cater just to them. That's not an issue. What is an issue is when one asshat, comes along and this isn't new, this has been going on for a couple of years at least, and thinks that his opinion is everyone's opinion. He refuses to listen to the professionals in the industry and refuses to accept that he's usually entirely incorrect and illogical.

Feedback is awesome which is why all of our sites have forums and every cancelling member gets quizzed on what we could do better. We've made massive improvements over the years due to this and tailored sites to the majority - but I refuse to bow or kowtow to the one or two individuals who are too ignorant or short sighted to listen to the facts. Every customer, is not always right. Some customers will never be pleased - and if I can't please them, then they should take their custom elsewhere.

loveboof

12-29-2012, 03:45 AM

lol - this thread is like a master class in customer service! If I need any PR tips I know where to turn :P

(btw, I agree with Seanchai about the models. No girl will appeal to everyone...)

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 03:48 AM

I'm just going to say this. You're very stupid. I'm not doing the same thing that Wendy did. I compared two companies' video quality. The samples are videos. Video quality and harcore/solo scenes are two different things. You can't compare them in the same manner. Wendy is improperly comparing solo dvds and hardcore dvds. Her sample has a major flaw. Neither dvd contains the same people. A correct sample must have the same girls in the solo dvd and in the hardcore dvd.

Please go to college. You're stupid.

You need to send that scholarship back or give Daddy his money back instead of squandering it on porn instead of an education. She is exactly right in what she is saying. You cannot compare TSSeduction to Shemale Yum? One is a Kink site specializing in BDSM style hardcore full length scenes and the other is a magazine style site, featuring solo and hardcores of new models, current stars and a wide ranges of transgenders. Entirely different markets and customers.
You're a clown!

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 03:49 AM

lol - this thread is like a master class in customer service! If I need any PR tips I know where to turn :P

(btw, I agree with Seanchai about the models. No girl will appeal to everyone...)

Bella will be along in a minute and help out even further.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 03:53 AM

Very bad models? Alyssa Adams, Hazel Tucker, Jenna Rachels, Sofia Ferreira, Sofia Sanders, Acadia Veneer, Angela Skye, Natalie Foxx, Brielle Bop, Cristen Cristensen, Alina Apple, Eva Cassini, Megan, Scarlett, Gianna Riviera, Valerie Daniels, Karissima, Yazlene Reyes, Annalise Rose, Kimora Jade, Danika Dreamz, Venus Lux, Texi Trap, Khloe Reyes, Valerie Alamond ...

I'm not going to be rude and say anyone's name. You only listed a handful of the thousands of models. Some of the girls you mention are great quality models like Hazel Tucker, Jenna Rachels, and Acadia Veneer. However, most models on the site do not compare. I won't be listing any names about models who I think should not be in porn. Most of the models at Black T-Girls should not be near porn a studio. Most of them are not close to Natassia Dream's and Paris's league.

I don't want my company to be criticized, I strife to be the best and I think we attain it. As stated, I'm the only company to offer this sort of discourse and allow feedback but if you start getting too obnoxious (and you're almost there) then you can fuck off and find a property we don't own to bitch on. I answer feedback all the time and often make changes on it - I'm not going to change our model line-up - based on what "Franklin" thinks is right, you're one mouth and you don't represent more than one mouth.

Oh so you only want praise? I understand that criticism can hurt even if there is no intentions to hurt someone. I criticize myself very often because I am not perfect. I flaws just like everyone else. It is a damn shame to think your company is perfect. No porn company is perfect. I can say a lot of good things about your site. I have some of the best customer service experiences with Grooby sites.

However, I also think the model quality at Shemale Yum is not always up to par. Most models are not in the same league as Hazel Tucker. More strongly, I think the model quality at Black T-Girls is terrible.

lifeisfiction

12-29-2012, 03:55 AM

Thats what critism is, its never liked it can be constructive or destructive. Ebert reviews movies. Half the movies he likes I think are garbage. His opinions are touted as the voice for the masses (I am not saying that in this case that is what we are dealing with), but thats how is opinion treated. Franklin, is not going to accept your view nor is going to agree with it no matter how much evidence you present.

Here in lies the catch, a person's opinion will not always be liked. I would put money that they are people who feel they way he does, but will never say it.

Seanchai you are proud of your work and someone says something hurtful of course you will take it personally. You have to remember that anything that can be made critical will always invite those opinions. You can't please people all the time.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 03:57 AM

Time for an interlude .... bad looking girls just for Franklin!

Wendy Summers

12-29-2012, 03:57 AM

Has anybody from your production company went to college and taken both Statistics and Methods of Research courses?

I won't listen to producers until they properly compare the data. There are far too many issues with your samples and how you are comparing the two.

Hey Franklin!

Guess what my day job when I'm not making porn is?

I'm an analyst of consumer product sales data.

Your misapplication of your statistics 101 level knowledge is as offensive to my eyes as Michael Crichton's pseudoscience in Jurassic Park would be to a geneticist.

Just say "I like watching blondes with big faked tits get railed rather than stroke" and then walk away.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 04:03 AM

I'm not going to be rude and say anyone's name. You only listed a handful of the thousands of models. Some of the girls you mention are great quality models like Hazel Tucker, Jenna Rachels, and Acadia Veneer. However, most models on the site do not compare. I won't be listing any names about models who I think should not be in porn. Most of the models at Black T-Girls should not be near porn a studio. Most of them are not close to Natassia Dream's and Paris's league.

They may not be close to Natassia Dreams or Paris's league IN YOUR OPINION. So care to explain why BlackTgirls has been running for 13+ yrs, pays out over $150,000 a year on content?

Oh so you only want praise? I understand that criticism can hurt even if there is no intentions to hurt someone. I criticize myself very often because I am not perfect. I flaws just like everyone else. It is a damn shame to think your company is perfect. No porn company is perfect. I can say a lot of good things about your site. I have some of the best customer service experiences with Grooby sites.
Where did I say I only want praise? I want relevant constructive feedback and people to understand that their opinions, aren't the only ones. That's how we've grown and adapted over the years.

However, I also think the model quality at Shemale Yum is not always up to par. Most models are not in the same league as Hazel Tucker. More strongly, I think the model quality at Black T-Girls is terrible.
That's YOUR perogative and opinion. I won't argue with what YOU think - just don't dare project that is what everyone else thinks, which is what you have been doing. You cannot argue with the facts. I know that some of SMY and BTG's models may be a little early in transition for some, or not the right body shape for some, that's fine ... many of those "early models" go onto to be the biggest stars. Practically every TS model started with a shoot for one of our sites. We launched Shemale.XXX for those who want a more polished modle - and http://www.shemalepornstar.com for those only wanting top models in hardcore scenes. They work well - as does Shemale Yum and Black Tgirls for the members they're aiming at.

sherm13

12-29-2012, 04:06 AM

However, I also think the model quality at Shemale Yum is not always up to par. Most models are not in the same league as Hazel Tucker.

Uh, most TS website models are not in the same league as Hazel Tucker. She is one of the most beautiful in the world. To think that all models on SMY should be in the same class of looks as her is an insane thought.

SMY caters to all sorts of fans of TS porn. I dont like every single model they showcase but Grooby does a great job of giving the subscriber what they want. The more praise the subscrivers give the model, the more that model is showcased. That is part of running a good business, catering to the fans.

Currently, the site is getting much better in terms of quality. The photographers are improving and the videos are much more erotic and interesting instead of someone whacking it in a chair for ten minutes in the same position like a disintersted robot.

In the argument of solo vs hardcore, TS hardcore scenes really pale in comparision to GG's. Only a handful of models are good in hardcore scenes while some of them look miserable and are not into the scene at all. Hell, half of them are nearly mute while getting nailed. Its tough to get into a scene when the performer looks like they want to leave ASAP.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 04:06 AM

I'm not going to be rude and say anyone's name. You only listed a handful of the thousands of models. Some of the girls you mention are great quality models like Hazel Tucker, Jenna Rachels, and Acadia Veneer. However, most models on the site do not compare. I won't be listing any names about models who I think should not be in porn. Most of the models at Black T-Girls should not be near porn a studio. Most of them are not close to Natassia Dream's and Paris's league.

Oh so you only want praise? I understand that criticism can hurt even if there is no intentions to hurt someone. I criticize myself very often because I am not perfect. I flaws just like everyone else. It is a damn shame to think your company is perfect. No porn company is perfect. I can say a lot of good things about your site. I have some of the best customer service experiences with Grooby sites.

However, I also think the model quality at Shemale Yum is not always up to par. Most models are not in the same league as Hazel Tucker. More strongly, I think the model quality at Black T-Girls is terrible.

I normally don't comment on things that I'm not quoted in but SERIOUSLY??? THAT (your bold) is what you take from that comment? And you call other people 'stupid'? Just because someone doesn't 'like' something, that isn't a statement to the contrary. I will spell this out for you since you often have reading comprehension problems. Just because a business owner (or anyone for that matter) says they don't like/want criticism, that doesn't inherently mean they only want praise.

Please... look at your own stupidity before you go putting that label on others.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 04:09 AM

Hey Franklin!

Guess what my day job when I'm not making porn is?

I'm an analyst of consumer product sales data.

Your misapplication of your statistics 101 level knowledge is as offensive to my eyes as Michael Crichton's pseudoscience in Jurassic Park would be to a geneticist.

Just say "I like watching blondes with big faked tits get railed rather than stroke" and then walk away.

I though you'd show up and have something to say about that ��. Know you love your numbers... and understand how raw data and statistics work!

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 04:14 AM

OK... I have pictures and videos to shoot so I'm out :) Been fun, y'all ��.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 04:27 AM

sherm13

12-29-2012, 04:36 AM

[QUOTE=FRANKLIN;1253431How is it insane to want quality models? Is everyone going to be in Hazel's league? No. Asking for quality models is very reasonable.

Do you think Black T-Girls have a good amount of quality models? I'm so curious about this answer.[/QUOTE]

SMY puts out all sorts of TV/TS models each week. You keep throwing out the word "quality" but expect SMY to show your kind of quality when in fact they showcase all sorts of TV/TS models. So if you find a TV to not be quality because they are a TV, then you shouldnt join that site as they arent just going to have superstars.

As far as Black T-Girls is concerned, I cant say that they feature the most attractive gals on the planet but they are catering to a very specific group and its tough to fill weekly updates with just Black T-girls. I just dont subscribe to that site and I can live with that.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 04:42 AM

SMY puts out all sorts of TV/TS models each week. You keep throwing out the word "quality" but expect SMY to show your kind of quality when in fact they showcase all sorts of TV/TS models. So if you find a TV to not be quality because they are a TV, then you shouldnt join that site as they arent just going to have superstars.

As far as Black T-Girls is concerned, I cant say that they feature the most attractive gals on the planet but they are catering to a very specific group and its tough to fill weekly updates with just Black T-girls. I just dont subscribe to that site and I can live with that.

I respect your opinion about Black T-Girls.com.

I cannot respect your opinion about TVs on TS sites. Shemale Yum does not say TV Yum. The site's name is Shemale. The site does not say that TV men will be featured. Shemales are TS women. TVs are not transsexuals. A TV should not be featured on any TS site.

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 04:46 AM

As a black t girl model i take offence to that assholes.i get so fucking tired of people talking shit about black girls you racist twats

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 04:49 AM

I respect your opinion about Black T-Girls.com.

I cannot respect your opinion about TVs on TS sites. Shemale Yum does not say TV Yum. The site's name is Shemale. The site does not say that TV men will be featured. Shemales are TS women. TVs are not transsexuals. A TV should not be featured on any TS site.

So, just for clarity here... and since you're an expert on the topic...

I would like you to put down here, in writing, what your qualifications for being featured on a "TS" site are. And if you say, "being TS" then you really are either stupid or a total fraud. Go ahead.

sherm13

12-29-2012, 04:54 AM

As a black t girl model i take offence to that assholes.i get so fucking tired of people talking shit about black girls you racist twats

I take offense to people throwing out accusations of racism when it is not called for. Its not like I called every girl on the site a dog but there are few TV's who are just there because of their huge wangs and do not really look feminine at all. That look doesnt do it for me. There are plenty of black t-girls who are gorgeous.

I will say this, I just looked at the preview section at Blacktgirls.com and the quality seems much improved from just a few years ago.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 04:57 AM

So, just for clarity here... and since you're an expert on the topic...

I would like you to put down here, in writing, what your qualifications for being featured on a "TS" site are. And if you say, "being TS" then you really are either stupid or a total fraud. Go ahead.

If a site's name is Shemale, Tranny, TS, Trassexual, or any other term people rightfully or wrongfully use to advertise TS should only feature TS women. If a site includes TV men then the site needs a different name. M2F transsexuals are women. TVs are not women.

Being a TS is required to be on a TS site with the sole exception of the person's hardcore partner. However, the scene should contain at least one TS.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 04:59 AM

As a black t girl model i take offence to that assholes.i get so fucking tired of people talking shit about black girls you racist twats

This is funny. I'm black. I don't find most black GG women attractive. I don't find most black TS women attractive. Is that racist? No! I'm not sexually attracted to most of them. Who are you to tell someone who they should find attractive?

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:02 AM

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 05:04 AM

I take offense to people throwing out accusations of racism when it is not called for. Its not like I called every girl on the site a dog but there are few TV's who are just there because of their huge wangs and do not really look feminine at all. That look doesnt do it for me. There are plenty of black t-girls who are gorgeous.

I will say this, I just looked at the preview section at Blacktgirls.com and the quality seems much improved from just a few years ago.

i know just as many popular white, hispanic and asain models who in my opinion arent fem at all but are popular because of their big cocks or ability to cum a small lake.it isnt a phenomena exclusive to black tgirls but one that is common to ts porn in general

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 05:04 AM

so you're stupid, a fraud, AND chicken. Great!
You basically said nothing... One more try?

If you think it is okay for a TS site to feature a TV then something is clearly wrong with you. Featuring a TV in a solo scene is FRAUD. The person is not a transsexual woman. The person is a man in a wig.

i know just as many popular white, hispanic and asain models who in my opinion arent fem at all but are popular because of their big cocks or ability to cum a small lake.it isnt a phenomena exclusive to black tgirls but one that is common to ts porn in general

Care to tell us who these people are? It's difficult to fully judge your opinion without comparing the models.

giovanni_hotel

12-29-2012, 05:05 AM

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 05:07 AM

This is funny. I'm black. I don't find most black GG women attractive. I don't find most black TS women attractive. Is that racist? No! I'm not sexually attracted to most of them. Who are you to tell someone who they should find attractive?

than why use black tgirls as an example of mediocre models? if you dont find black girls attractive than cool but dont try to insinuate that all black models are of poor quality. im not a fan of black men my damn self but i can realize when one fits the typical standards of attractiveness.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:08 AM

If you think it is okay for a TS site to feature a TV then something is clearly wrong with you. Featuring a TV in a solo scene is FRAUD. The person is not a transsexual woman. The person is a man in a wig.

So, basically just say that you're either chicken to put down your definitions or that you really don't know... in either case, you've pretty much lost credibility to comment further at all. I know this is coming but I really don't want to spell out why, so please make the effort to connect a few threads of logic.

sherm13

12-29-2012, 05:09 AM

i know just as many popular white, hispanic and asain models who in my opinion arent fem at all but are popular because of their big cocks or ability to cum a small lake.it isnt a phenomena exclusive to black tgirls but one that is common to ts porn in general

That is true, however there was a time when Blacktgirls.com was filled with at least half of that criteria, more so than any other Grooby site. I wouldnt pay $35.99 a month for that prodcut, personally. Like I said, after looking at the previews on the site a few minutes ago, the models appear a lot more feminine now. There are many gorgeous girls of different ethnicites and I do not discriminiate against anyone. I really do not know how pointing out why I would not purchase a membership for that site makes me a racist.

Plus, there are many quality black tgirl models but I do not always see them on Grooby sites.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:12 AM

I find women attractive in general, but in terms of modeling I will say on BTG there seems to be more extremes in the models featured.

But like I said, I dig Black girls so I'd probably say at least half of the girls on BTG are alright.
Really there are so many pretty to stunning Black tgirls featured that it kinda balances out the more questionable ones.

And yeah I don't like TVs being featured and them being sold to us as 'early transition' TGs. I KNOW some of those are just gay dudes working that hustle with a wig and lipstick.

I already know you run from confrontation but I'll give you the same opportunity as I gave Franklin. In writing... What are your qualifications for someone appearing on a "TS" site?

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 05:12 AM

I find women attractive in general, but in terms of modeling I will say on BTG there seems to be more extremes in the models featured.

But like I said, I dig Black girls so I'd probably say at least half of the girls on BTG are alright.
Really there are so many pretty to stunning Black tgirls featured that it kinda balances out the more questionable ones.

And yeah I don't like TVs being featured and them being sold to us as 'early transition' TGs. I KNOW some of those are just gay dudes working that hustle with a wig and lipstick.

i see the same damn extremes on shemale yum as well.
and who are you to decide if an early transitioner is a real ts woman or not? are you going by physical appearance? theres no way for you to know that other than sitting down with the person one on one and asking.not every girls starts out with a natural femininity some it takes years of hormones and surgery.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 05:13 AM

than why use black tgirls as an example of mediocre models? if you dont find black girls attractive than cool but dont try to insinuate that all black models are of poor quality. im not a fan of black men my damn self but i can realize when one fits the typical standards of attractiveness.

I find most black girls to be unattractive so I would find most of them to be poor quality models. If I thought otherwise then I would be contradicting myself. I understand why people find certain body types attractive.

I understand why guys are into you. You're a very passable TS woman. However, there are many other black Ts women on the site who are clearly not passable. Some are more buff than John Cena. They don't fit into the typical standards of attractiveness.

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 05:14 AM

I find most black girls to be unattractive so I would find most of them to be poor quality models. If I thought otherwise then I would be contradicting myself. I understand why people find certain body types attractive.

I understand why guys are into you. You're a very passable TS woman. However, there are many other black Ts women on the site who are clearly not passable. Some are more buff than John Cena. They don't fit into the typical standards of attractiveness.

again your missing my point.its unfair to say that just because someone isnt your type that they are a poor model.
i will make the same comparission:im not into black guys but im not going to say that all black men are ugly

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:15 AM

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 05:15 AM

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 05:15 AM

I already know you run from confrontation but I'll give you the same opportunity as I gave Franklin. In writing... What are your qualifications for someone appearing on a "TS" site?

having awkward implants that look like someone shoved a fish bowl under the models chest lol

FreddieGomez

12-29-2012, 05:16 AM

I find most black girls to be unattractive so I would find most of them to be poor quality models. If I thought otherwise then I would be contradicting myself. I understand why people find certain body types attractive.

I understand why guys are into you. You're a very passable TS woman. However, there are many other black Ts women on the site who are clearly not passable. Some are more buff than John Cena. They don't fit into the typical standards of attractiveness.

the market for black ts are mostly tv's with big dicks posing as ts.

Wendy Summers

12-29-2012, 05:18 AM

If a site's name is Shemale, Tranny, TS, Trassexual, or any other term people rightfully or wrongfully use to advertise TS should only feature TS women. If a site includes TV men then the site needs a different name. M2F transsexuals are women. TVs are not women.

Being a TS is required to be on a TS site with the sole exception of the person's hardcore partner. However, the scene should contain at least one TS.

So I'll open up a can of worms here LOL

Franklin, in your mind's eye, what am I? (Besides unattractive to you - which is fine you're not my target market ;))

I've been off of hormones for almost all of my porn career due to medical issues.
I have never had any medical enhancements to my body: no surgeries; no pumping etc.

Am I a TS in your world view?

giovanni_hotel

12-29-2012, 05:19 AM

i see the same damn extremes on shemale yum as well.
and who are you to decide if an early transitioner is a real ts woman or not? are you going by physical appearance? theres no way for you to know that other than sitting down with the person one on one and asking.not every girls starts out with a natural femininity some it takes years of hormones and surgery.

True Amber, who am I to say??
But do you deny that there are times when CDs are presented as transgendered just to sell product?

I'm not saying they ALL are, but with some.....put it this way, the fashion editorial director of Vogue Mag is not about to put a 300# woman with acne on the cover and say she's an 'early stage runway model'.

Porn has always been about the hustle game, and the consumers are the marks.

There are models IMO who shouldn't be featured on many of these trans-oriented sites because they either are selling a false product, or are way too early in the process of transitioning.

GroobyKrissy, I'm far from afraid of confrontation, but I'm also not going to get into an interwebz back-and-forth with someone who argues with their own reflection. You're a repetitive bigmouth. No thanks.

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 05:22 AM

FYI, not trying to be mean. Seanachi has posted in the past that he does shoot TVs for the TS sites..............

Jamie Bankurm is one of these TVs. Jamie is a gay man who does gay porn. However, companies like Grooby and Shemale Strokers shoot him with women's clothing and a wig.

thats all well and good,im not saying it doesnt happen but just because someone doesnt fit your standard of femininity doesnt mean that they are a ts woman.
go to brazil,there are tons of drop dead gorgeous "ts woman" but you will be surprised how many consider themselves just effeminate gay men.

giovanni_hotel

12-29-2012, 05:23 AM

So I'll open up a can of worms here LOL

Franklin, in your mind's eye, what am I? (Besides unattractive to you - which is fine you're not my target market ;))

I've been off of hormones for almost all of my porn career due to medical issues.
I have never had any medical enhancements to my body: no surgeries; no pumping etc.

Am I a TS in your world view?

Eye of the beholder, but IMO Wendy you're very fem.
Your personality through posts comes across as very 'chick-y'.:fuckin:
The boobs, skin, face, etc. You're a LADY.

Not going to speak for FRANKLIN, but I've seen some girls who just aren't even close to pulling off being a trans-woman in photos.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:24 AM

True Amber, who am I to say??
But do you deny that there are times when CDs are presented as transgendered just to sell product?

I'm not saying they ALL are, but with some.....put it this way, the fashion editorial director of Vogue Mag is not about to put a 300# woman with acne on the cover and say she's an 'early stage runway model'.

Porn has always been about the hustle game, and the consumers are the marks.

There are models IMO who shouldn't be featured on many of these trans-oriented sites because they either are selling a false product, or are way too early in the process of transitioning.

GroobyKrissy, I'm far from afraid of confrontation, but I'm also not going to get into an interwebz back-and-forth with someone who argues with their own reflection. You're a repetitive bigmouth. No thanks.

how is asking one question for concrete definitions pertinent to the discussion at hand an "argument"? I'm totally fine if you (or Franklin) judge people solely on looks... Just admit it... One more chance for you too now.

The problem is you really can't admit that because to use Franklin's wording... Your data then becomes invalid. I know it is strange to have to answer for your words... So sorry for that inconvenience.

giovanni_hotel

12-29-2012, 05:26 AM

ALL tgirl consumers judge girls on their LOOKS. All porn consumers judge actors on their appearance. Is this a suddenly a new concept??

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 05:29 AM

Eye of the beholder, but IMO Wendy you're very fem.
Your personality through posts comes across as very 'chick-y'.:fuckin:
The boobs, skin, face, etc. You're a LADY.

Not going to speak for FRANKLIN, but I've seen some girls who just aren't even close to pulling off being a trans-woman in photos.

catch me 5 years ago and i was nothing close to passable.i can assure you though that ive fell like a woman my whole life.i use to cry myselff to sleep over it.it wasnt until allot of hormones and few surgeries later that i started to resemble what you call a "ts woman".
you cant judge things like this on looks alone.i understand men are vsiual creatures and all that but why not try to strive to be someone deeper lol

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:30 AM

ALL tgirl consumers judge girls on their LOOKS. All porn consumers judge actors on their appearance. Is this a suddenly a new concept??

not the point here and I'll give you more credit than you'd give me and say you're smart enough to know it. That is a dodge (bad one) of my question... Which you (or Franklin) have yet to answer.

Wendy Summers

12-29-2012, 05:30 AM

Not going to speak for FRANKLIN,

Shhhhh.... be vewy vewy qwiet... I'm huntin Fwanklin's hehehehehehehe

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ufn2gWJ8vRY/TeikzDGVr-I/AAAAAAAABDM/CHfEey8a9Fc/s1600/Picture%2B22.png

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 05:32 AM

ALL tgirl consumers judge girls on their LOOKS. All porn consumers judge actors on their appearance. Is this a suddenly a new concept??

Too many people in the TS porn industry are sensitive about judging a TS's looks. I understand that transitioning is not an easy process. However, we are also paying consumers. Our voices should be heard in praise and in criticism. If you are a model in the sex industry then you should expect to be judged based on your looks and performances. Your looks will be judged the most.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 05:33 AM

not the point here and I'll give you more credit than you'd give me and say you're smart enough to know it. That is a dodge (bad one) of my question... Which you (or Franklin) have yet to answer.

I answered your question twice. Go back a page or two.

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 05:34 AM

ALL tgirl consumers judge girls on their LOOKS. All porn consumers judge actors on their appearance. Is this a suddenly a new concept??

and thats the problem right there.guys see a few shemale scenes,see an escort or two and feel like they can weigh in on what it is to be ts.
you have multiple ts woman of various transition experience telling you that you cant judge whos a ts or not solely based on looks but your not acknowledging that lol.
why if i told you i truly feel like a man.i just do this shit for kicks.here i am looking all "passable" and shit but dont feel like a woman at all.i know a few girls who have implants and look pretty as hell but dont feel like woman.they just look the part.
i also know trans woman who look like shaq but spent their whole lives living and feeling like woman.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:35 AM

Not going to speak for FRANKLIN, but I've seen some girls who just aren't even close to pulling off being a trans-woman in photos.

This "...close to pulling off being a trans-woman in photos..." proves a complete and utter failure to grasp what TS is. You have NO further credibility to speak on the issue.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:41 AM

I answered your question twice. Go back a page or two.

No you didn't. You put down what I stated you'd put down, which is to say,

Being TS us what qualifies you to be on a TS site.

Surely I don't have to explain the concept of circular reasoning to someone as smart as you? Like I said, I have NO problem if you judge a person's TS status solely on looks... Just admit it and lose all credibility to speak seriously on the subject.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 05:43 AM

and thats the problem right there.guys see a few shemale scenes,see an escort or two and feel like they can weigh in on what it is to be ts.
you have multiple ts woman of various transition experience telling you that you cant judge whos a ts or not solely based on looks but your not acknowledging that lol.
why if i told you i truly feel like a man.i just do this shit for kicks.here i am looking all "passable" and shit but dont feel like a woman at all.i know a few girls who have implants and look pretty as hell but dont feel like woman.they just look the part.
i also know trans woman who look like shaq but spent their whole lives living and feeling like woman.

You don't understand what is being said. I understand that it is a long process for a TS. However, consumers want the best looking models. There is nothing wrong with wanting the best girls like Hazel Tuker, Kimber James, Eva Lin, and Sarina Valentina. They're who many consumers want to see featured on every site.

I understand that not all TS women are very feminine. A person's status as a TS cannot be based on looks. A TS woman is not required to be feminine. A TS woman may not be in transition. However, that is not up for debate. That's not being agrued.

giovanni_hotel

12-29-2012, 05:45 AM

This "...close to pulling off being a trans-woman in photos..." proves a complete and utter failure to grasp what TS is. You have NO further credibility to speak on the issue.

You all aren't getting that we're having a convo about SELLING and COMMODIFYING the concept of transgendered sexuality as a product.

We're not defining what it meaning in a very personal sense to be transgendered.

If you're asking me to purchase your vid because you're TG, you have to bring more to the table than just being a 'tgirl', however you want to define it.

Amber is making rhetorical points, but Amber is also beautiful. She knows what her product is and how to sell it.

You can't bend the space-time continuum of TS porn just to make a political point.
Porn of any kind is about selling the GOODS to your audience, and being successful in any business begins with knowing your audience foremost.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:46 AM

Too many people in the TS porn industry are sensitive about judging a TS's looks. I understand that transitioning is not an easy process. However, we are also paying consumers. Our voices should be heard in praise and in criticism. If you are a model in the sex industry then you should expect to be judged based on your looks and performances. Your looks will be judged the most.

Again with the reading comprehension problem. I could care less who you do or do not find ATTRACTIVE. When you go beyond that however and start saying girls are "bad" (read: unworthy) to be on a site like SMY because you question their TS status... That I have a problem with.

sherm13

12-29-2012, 05:48 AM

what qualifies you to be on a TS site.

I will try a crack at this.

The only qualification is for someone to appear on a TS site, whether CD/TS, is to appear feminine and interested in the scene. Look at Kayla Coxx for example. As Kayla, she delivers great scenes but that person is also a gay porn actor. Still, Kayla Coxx scenes are more feminine and passionate than a majority of other TS pornstars. That is my two cents, anyway.

Wendy Summers

12-29-2012, 05:48 AM

This thread needs some maturity injected int it:

Here's a bat with a boner.

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/bat_36abb6_786485.jpg

You're welcome ;)

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 05:51 AM

Again with the reading comprehension problem. I could care less who you do or do not find ATTRACTIVE. When you go beyond that however and start saying girls are "bad" (read: unworthy) to be on a site like SMY because you question their TS status... That I have a problem with.

Damn! Read the damn thread again. I have not questioned anyone's status. Seachi has said that he shoots TVS on his TS sites. I do not know who most of these people are. I did not call out anyone besides Jamie. Jamie Markum is the only TV I know he has shot.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:52 AM

You all aren't getting that we're having a convo about SELLING and COMMODIFYING the concept of transgendered sexuality as a product.

We're not defining what it meaning in a very personal sense to be transgendered.

If you're asking me to purchase your vid because you're TG, you have to bring more to the table than just being a 'tgirl', however you want to define it.

Amber is making rhetorical points, but Amber is also beautiful. She knows what her product is and how to sell it.

You can't bend the space-time continuum of TS porn just to make a political point.
Porn of any kind is about selling the GOODS to your audience, and being successful in any business begins with knowing your audience foremost.

No. You're backtracking now because you and Franklin have both spewed your crap and find yourselves in a corner. Your original response to Franklin's post about TV's being featured on TS sites directly contradicts what you're now stating.

Stand by your words or just simply say you were wrong. I expect neither though.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 05:52 AM

I will try a crack at this.

The only qualification is for someone to appear on a TS site, whether CD/TS, is to appear feminine and interested in the scene. Look at Kayla Coxx for example. As Kayla, she delivers great scenes but that person is also a gay porn actor. Still, Kayla Coxx scenes are more feminine and passionate than a majority of other TS pornstars. That is my two cents, anyway.

That's false advertisement. Kayla Coxx may have been in TS porn DVDs and sites. However, Kayla Coxx has only done gay porn. Being in a TS DVD does not change the fact the scene is actually a gay porn scene. You're watching a MAN jack off or a man get fucked by another man. That's not TS porn. That's gay porn.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:57 AM

Damn! Read the damn thread again. I have not questioned anyone's status. Seachi has said that he shoots TVS on his TS sites. I do not know who most of these people are. I did not call out anyone besides Jamie. Jamie Markum is the only TV I know he has shot.

It is Markham.

I love people who cannot even comprehend the things they have said. It is "calling out" girls who you find UNATTRACTIVE to say that they are merely guys in wigs and dresses ( or something to that effect) and don't belong on a TS site because they are, in fact, not TS. Can you deny you stated that?

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 06:00 AM

anyway... I really am out now so feel free to talk about me behind my back. I'm in a club and this guy has been patiently waiting for me to get off my phone ;) See ya!

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 06:00 AM

It is Markham.

I love people who cannot even comprehend the things they have said. It is "calling out" girls who you find UNATTRACTIVE to say that they are merely guys in wigs and dresses ( or something to that effect) and don't belong on a TS site because they are, in fact, not TS. Can you deny you stated that?

Prove to me that I said that! I know you can't!

I clearly said that TVs not belong on TS sites.

I said poor quality TS models should not be in porn. I did not deny or question their status as TS women.

giovanni_hotel

12-29-2012, 06:01 AM

I will try a crack at this.

The only qualification is for someone to appear on a TS site, whether CD/TS, is to appear feminine and interested in the scene. Look at Kayla Coxx for example. As Kayla, she delivers great scenes but that person is also a gay porn actor. Still, Kayla Coxx scenes are more feminine and passionate than a majority of other TS pornstars. That is my two cents, anyway.

Truth.

I'm sure like most guys into TS and TS porn that I've been 'fooled' before.:shrug

Porn after all is about selling illusion and fantasy.
All I'm asking is if you're going to fuck my head, do it big time.
http://rafesdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/black.jpg

Don't play me cheap.

Wendy Summers

12-29-2012, 06:02 AM

Prove to me that I said that!

First motherfucking word in the post below... what do I win? :dancing:

That's false advertisement. Kayla Coxx may have been in TS porn DVDs and sites. However, Kayla Coxx has only done gay porn. Being in a TS DVD does not change the fact the scene is actually a gay porn scene. You're watching a MAN jack off or a man get fucked by another man. That's not TS porn. That's gay porn.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 06:04 AM

First motherfucking word in the post below... what do I win? :dancing:

You didn't prove anything. Kayla Coxxx is not a transsexual. This is not based on Kayla's looks. This is based on Kayla's statements. Kayla is a TV featured in TS porn.

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 06:05 AM

First motherfucking word in the post below... what do I win? :dancing:

a life time of constant critiques about your site lol

Wendy Summers

12-29-2012, 06:07 AM

You didn't prove anything. Kayla Coxxx is not a transsexual. This is not based on Kayla's looks. This is based on Kayla's statements. Kayla is a TV featured in TS porn.

Trolling you is no fun when the troll goes over your head...

Prove to me that I said that!

That's false advertisement. Kayla Coxx may have been in TS porn DVDs and sites. However, Kayla Coxx has only done gay porn. Being in a TS DVD does not change the fact the scene is actually a gay porn scene. You're watching a MAN jack off or a man get fucked by another man. That's not TS porn. That's gay porn.

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 06:07 AM

so does it still count as false advertisment if the girl looks like sarina valentina but feel like daryl washington inside lol

Wendy Summers

12-29-2012, 06:09 AM

a life time of constant critiques about your site lol

For some reason the guys never say anythign negative about me - I personally believe they are familiar with my uncle's sage advice:

"If you can't say something nice.... SHUT UP!"

Wendy Summers

12-29-2012, 06:10 AM

so does it still count as false advertisment if the girl looks like sarina valentina but feel like daryl washington inside lol

I bet daryl wouldn't mind being inside Sarina....

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 06:11 AM

so does it still count as false advertisment if the girl looks like sarina valentina but feel like daryl washington inside lol

If a F2M looks like a woman then the person is still a TS. I've never said looks determine a person's TS status.

Kayla Coxxx is an open gay male who crossdressed for Ts porn companies and some Johns. Kayla Coxxx was a TV hooker. TVs are not TS woman. That's all that I am saying. How hard is that to understand?

giovanni_hotel

12-29-2012, 06:11 AM

No. You're backtracking now because you and Franklin have both spewed your crap and find yourselves in a corner. Your original response to Franklin's post about TV's being featured on TS sites directly contradicts what you're now stating.

Stand by your words or just simply say you were wrong. I expect neither though.
This is why I don't engage you in discussions because you make shit up as you go along.

And I totally know and believe there have been gay men posing as TS who have been featured on tranny porn sites, either unknowingly or with the full knowledge of the site owner.

Many of the girls have said as much on this exact same board.

But all I'm really focused on in this case is appearance, not who's really TG. It's not a huge issue for me because IMO whenever Seanchai posts a drop dead beautiful TG, it cancels out those girls I don't find particularly attractive.

Even when I look at a Playboy mag, I don't find every girl pure perfection.
I don't think it's reasonable in the TS genre to expect it either.

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 06:12 AM

For some reason the guys never say anythign negative about me - I personally believe they are familiar with my uncle's sage advice:

"If you can't say something nice.... SHUT UP!"

or theyre scared that youll use you violet wand on their naughty bits

Wendy Summers

12-29-2012, 06:15 AM

or theyre scared that youll use you violet wand on their naughty bits

EXACTLY why my uncle gave that advice... :geek:

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 06:16 AM

If a F2M looks like a woman then the person is still a TS. I've never said looks determine a person's TS status.

Kayla Coxxx is an open gay male who crossdressed for Ts porn companies and some Johns. Kayla Coxxx was a TV hooker. TVs are not TS woman. That's all that I am saying. How hard is that to understand?

thats not what i asked but ok lol.
what if a ts model looked as passable as sarina but was only transitioning for the money that can be made in porn and escorting.would you still feel like it was false advertisement if you naughty busty vixen still identified as a man?

giovanni_hotel

12-29-2012, 06:19 AM

thats not what i asked but ok lol.
what if a ts model looked as passable as sarina but was only transitioning for the money that can be made in porn and escorting.would you still feel like it was false advertisement if you naughty busty vixen still identified as a man?

LOL. You're making me paranoid!!:hide-1:

Please tell me you don't know more than one person who's doing this.

Oh and yeah, that is false advertising. But that's the game, isn't it???

NoahNomad

12-29-2012, 06:20 AM

There are valid points on both sides. The problem with trans porn is not the quality of the models. There are so many beautiful, unique women offering top quality performance for their fans so it is really insulting to imply that trans porn has lower standards. People are somehow judging TS porn differently than "straight" (cis) porn, and I'm not understanding why. I'm sure there are a lot of girls in straight porn that you personally do not find attractive, and question their place in porn --- but I'm sure you also understand that every girl has value in the proper market.

When you understand that there are a wide variety of consumers and a shit ton of money to be made off of their preferences and fantasies, you'd employ a wide variety of women to fill the tall order too. In my opinion, the only difference between straight porn and TS porn (in this specific circumstance) is the idea that non-passable women should not be in porn. This idea is ridiculous. Maybe a non-passable girl won't be on your top 10 or even top 100 list of your favorite girls, but there is a huge market for masculine/early-transitioned TS girls. You may not like it, but just ask the porn producers...because they are delivering many options, and I'm sure everybody is happy. :geek:

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 06:27 AM

LOL. You're making me paranoid!!:hide-1:

Please tell me you don't know more than one person who's doing this.

Oh and yeah, that is false advertising. But that's the game, isn't it???

the truth behind allot of yall beloved brazilian girls lol :

"Travesti are Brazilian trans women who are attracted to men.[15] Travestis' feminine identity includes hormones and/or silicone body alterations, feminine dress, language, and social and sexual roles, but rarely genital surgery.[15] However, in contrast to North American transsexual women, they often don't see themselves as real women, and many describe themselves as gay or homosexual.[15] According to Don Kulick, they will describe themselves instead as "feeling like a woman".

Transgender sexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_sexuality)

to answer your question tho i personally know one popular ts model who has admitted to never feeling like a woman at all but im big on respecting peoples privacy

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 06:45 AM

I'm calling it night! I'm going jack off to Jenna Rachels in a hardcore scene! Good night! :)

Willie Escalade

12-29-2012, 07:07 AM

Epic thread. What was it originally about?

sherm13

12-29-2012, 07:36 AM

Epic thread. What was it originally about?

Here is a timeline, I'm sick and cant sleep so I have the time. I tried my best to piece this together:

It was about XCritic not recognizing the TS genre by stating the work wasnt good enough.

Then, XCritic used male terminology to describe TS performers and got snippy when grilled about that.

Also, XCritic said that Seanchai should spend more time advertising TS porn

XCritic replied and apparently will be starting a TS designation for performers.

From there, Franklin and Seanchai had a back-and-forth about the quality of TS porn produced by Grooby.

Then, an argument ensued when Franklin claimed men wanted to see hardcore scenes instead of solo, despite others who work in the industry stating that solo stuff sells more.

Frankilin also felt that the models on SMY were not of a certain "quality."

I chimed in about SMY catering to a wide variety of fans then was questioned about the quality by Franklin.

I learned from one poster that you are indeed racist if you do not wish to subscribe to blacktgirls.com

Then, a debate ensued about CD/TV/TS in porn that strayed completely off-topic the entire time. Arguments broke out between several posters.

Franklin then informed us all that Kayla Coxx appearing in TS porn is false advertisement, as is the appearance of any other CD/TV appearing in TS porn.

The question of what qualifies you to be on a TS porn site was asked a bunch of times, even after the question was answered

It ended with Franklin informing us that he was leaving to yank it to Jenna Rachels.

Willie Escalade

12-29-2012, 07:50 AM

Thank you kindly for the summary! I'm about to celebrate the Lakers reaching .500 again...

sherm13

12-29-2012, 07:59 AM

Thank you kindly for the summary! I'm about to celebrate the Lakers reaching .500 again...

The Celtics are at that same percentage. Both teams need to pick it up but I still have confidence come playoff time.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 08:00 AM

Prove to me that I said that! I know you can't!

I clearly said that TVs not belong on TS sites.

I said poor quality TS models should not be in porn. I did not deny or question their status as TS women.

So, I already stated that I knew this "spelling out" was a foregone conclusion but since I just got laid, I am in a good mood. Here you go...

Earlier in THIS thread you said this:

"The site does not say that TV men will be featured. Shemales are TS women. TVs are not Transsexuals. A TV should not be featured on any TS site."

Let us break this statement down with all the implications intact. Let me first of all state that I am assuming you are smart enough to write what you mean, and not have to backtrack it later as "Oh, I didn't mean that."

"The site does not say that TV men will be featured."
First, I think we may agree that those who are appearing on a site like SMY, would not want to be called "TV men", which in effect IS calling anyone who you don't consider to be TS, a guy in wigs and dresses. Also, by stating it thus in that sentence, you are making the implication that the site features, what you designate as "TV men", a category of person that you've made implicitly clear, you find UNATTRACTIVE. So, connecting that thread of LOGIC, you are stating that the site features people that you deem unattractive and that those people are these "TV men" that you speak of...

"Shemales are TS women."
This statement should be inherently offensive to just about anybody who considers themselves to be TS, but I'll just give it to you for the sake of this conversation. Fine. Given.

"TVs are not Transsexuals."
So, here is where you make the distinction that those who you deem as "TV men" are not truly Transsexuals. This simple statement puts YOU as "the sole decider" of who is truly TS and who is not.

"A TV should not be featured on any TS site."

So, in conclusion, you DID in fact say (as I correctly stated):
1. People I find unattractive on TS sites I label as TV men.
2. Those people are not TS.
3. Those people do not belong on TS sites.

Let's just face the facts here. You cannot accurately define (STILL HAVEN'T DONE SO) what YOUR definition of "TS" is.

So, I will give you one last chance. This is all you have to write... with no excuses, no dodges, no "Oh, I already said that somewhere"., etc. Let's put away silly games and just get down to brass tacks about just how superficial and self-serving a person you really are:

"MY DEFINITION OF A TRANSVESTITE IS: ..."
"MY DEFINITION OF A TRANSSEXUAL IS: ..."

ed_jaxon

12-29-2012, 08:14 AM

tell us more about you getting laid

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 08:16 AM

This is why I don't engage you in discussions because you make shit up as you go along.

And I totally know and believe there have been gay men posing as TS who have been featured on tranny porn sites, either unknowingly or with the full knowledge of the site owner.

Many of the girls have said as much on this exact same board.

But all I'm really focused on in this case is appearance, not who's really TG. It's not a huge issue for me because IMO whenever Seanchai posts a drop dead beautiful TG, it cancels out those girls I don't find particularly attractive.

Even when I look at a Playboy mag, I don't find every girl pure perfection.
I don't think it's reasonable in the TS genre to expect it either.

No. You don't engage because you cannot answer the questions that I pose to you directly. You ran out on the first conversation I had with you and you're running out again on this one. Both times you threw out a nonsensical generalization ("...because you make shit up as you go along..." in order to dodge and deflect the actual question.

As I did for Franklin, I will spell YOUR OWN WORDS out for you so you can stop wasting my time and start arguing with yourself.

This was your first response in this thread... basically "and yeah..." agreeing with the statements already made by Franklin.
"And yeah I don't like TVs being featured and them being sold to us as 'early transition' TGs. I KNOW some of those are just gay dudes working that hustle with a wig and lipstick."

Then later on:
"You all aren't getting that we're having a convo about SELLING and COMMODIFYING the concept of transgendered sexuality as a product. We're not defining what it meaning in a very personal sense to be transgendered. If you're asking me to purchase your vid because you're TG, you have to bring more to the table than just being a 'tgirl', however you want to define it."

The first statement logically contradicts the second.

In the first you ARE defining by implication that TV's are featured and sold as "early transition" TG's... something you find a turn off because of the whole "gay dudes working that hustle with a wig and lipstick" thing. That is, the two are interchangeable.

In the second, you make an incredible statement that "We're not defining what [sic] it meaning in a very personal sense to be transgendered." Well, that's very noble of you... or would be if you didn't already show that you do just that... based on looks alone.

Not making this up as I go along... THESE ARE YOUR WORDS.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 08:20 AM

The question of what qualifies you to be on a TS porn site was asked a bunch of times, even after the question was answered.

Kindly quote to me where this was answered...? You can HARDLY call Franklin's circular reasoning of:

If you're TS, then you qualify to be on a TS site

an answer.

sherm13

12-29-2012, 08:24 AM

Kindly quote to me where this was answered...? You can HARDLY call Franklin's circular reasoning of:

If you're TS, then you qualify to be on a TS site

an answer.

I answered the question but Franklin's answer does count, whether you agree or not. He did answer the question.

Here is my answer:

"The only qualification is for someone to appear on a TS site, whether CD/TS, is to appear feminine and interested in the scene. Look at Kayla Coxx for example. As Kayla, she delivers great scenes but that person is also a gay porn actor. Still, Kayla Coxx scenes are more feminine and passionate than a majority of other TS pornstars. That is my two cents, anyway."

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 08:31 AM

For those of you who wonder why I so stress the importance of what a person defines as "TS" personally...

It is at the core of most arguments, and yet there are VERY few people who will actually put down in writing what they truly think. I applaud Amberskyi for doing it when I challenged her to do it last time, and I think it gives her credibility when she is making arguments in the future as there is a record about what place she is coming from.

You simply cannot speak knowingly of something you know nothing about or have not defined for YOURSELF, PERSONALLY.

I think a lot of people just throw this TS term around but few actually have thought through what they, in fact, actually believe. Fewer still are willing to actually admit that, "Yes, I judge Transsexuality based on looks alone," especially here, where the [imagined] backlash would be strong.

Quite honestly, I don't have a problem if that is the way you think. People judge other people on far worse criteria every day.

The problem I have is when you just won't admit it and then act like you're God's gift to the industry or can speak from a place of knowledge about the subject when in reality, all it takes to be TS in your mind is boobs and a pretty face.

OK... off to bed... I just got worn out... and not from the discussion.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 08:33 AM

I answered the question but Franklin's answer does count, whether you agree or not. He did answer the question.

Here is my answer:

"The only qualification is for someone to appear on a TS site, whether CD/TS, is to appear feminine and interested in the scene. Look at Kayla Coxx for example. As Kayla, she delivers great scenes but that person is also a gay porn actor. Still, Kayla Coxx scenes are more feminine and passionate than a majority of other TS pornstars. That is my two cents, anyway."

Yours is an answer (pretty broad one at that!)... but I wasn't directing the question to you. Franklin's is FAR from an answer. It is a circular dodge.

Please quote where you think Franklin's answer is...? Thanks.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 08:36 AM

tell us more about you getting laid

Not much to tell really. I went to a place called "Ember's" here in PDX because my photo shoot got interrupted with this stuff but I was all dressed up pretty like.

Continuing the conversation inside, I was typing away at my phone screen and this guy next to me kept staring at me and doing that "oops I touched your leg" thing that guys do.

Anyway, chatted with him for a while, had a drink, went back to his place, and what can I say... I'm now a one night stand slut :) Thank you very much. Good night.

MrsKellyPierce

12-29-2012, 08:43 AM

Franklin to be fair, many models only shoot for companies who will overly photoshop and make them look their best. As well as use video lighting etc to make them look their best.

Whereas, Grooby does light editing and goes for more the natural look and a more amateur look. Which many consumers prefer that over the highly edited photos, and others prefer the Playboyesque style.

So it's easier for a model to always look on point and great if she is modeling for a company that isn't going for a natural look.

But I will say many girls I have met look better in person than their pictorials/videos and others look better in the photos/video. Which as the consumer doesn't really matter as long as you are jerking off to something.

I'm just saying everyone knows Grooby shoots more natural and Shemaleclub shoots more Playboyesque and puts filters on everything.

And keep in mind straight companies have award winning photographers and directors, and they definitely make most of those females look good with photoshop and good lighting. I've seen them in person and it's definitely different for many of them.

I am aware you like blondes with big tits, but not every transsexual aspires to be a Barbie or have big tits. Just like females we all have our own version of what is pretty, and you may not like TVS or Transsexuals that look muscular/rough...but there are men that do. So on those updates Grooby, Shemaleclub, TSSEDUCTION, etc are pleasing those men.

But many top girls wont shoot for certain sites if they aren't edited and shown in the best light. So it's not only about "pay" it's about being worried a bad picture will be out there.

You must stay with sites, for the good updates. I know as a consumer it must be annoying for you when one weeks update isn't your type, but being on a multi-girl site you must know they are trying to reach out to everyone's eye of beauty! Some men don't like the stereotypical type of beauty. Which is what I call the American/Blonde/Big Tits look, it is a standard look of beauty. Some like nerdy girls, some like hippy girls, some like muscular girls, and so on. So you must understand Steven and other sites are trying to make all their customers happy. If you like a certain girls look, why don't you just join her solo site? Sarina, Kimber, Eva, and others you mentioned have solo sites. I have one coming out in Feb. So there are plenty of girls who would welcome you with open arms.

sherm13

12-29-2012, 08:52 AM

Yours is an answer (pretty broad one at that!)... but I wasn't directing the question to you. Franklin's is FAR from an answer. It is a circular dodge.

Please quote where you think Franklin's answer is...? Thanks.

Here is his answer. Sure, its vague but is an answer: "If a site's name is Shemale, Tranny, TS, Trassexual, or any other term people rightfully or wrongfully use to advertise TS should only feature TS women. If a site includes TV men then the site needs a different name. M2F transsexuals are women. TVs are not women.

Being a TS is required to be on a TS site with the sole exception of the person's hardcore partner. However, the scene should contain at least one TS."

My intrepretation of that is those who are in transition to being a woman as opposed to crossdressers off of Craiglist. That is all I can come away with from this answer, anyway.

The question was what qualifies to be on a TS porn site. It reads almost like a "What models would you showcase if you owned a TS pornsite" question. You seem upset that lots of posters prefer breast implants and collagen ejections over other types of models. People are attracted to what they are attracted to, so why fight it. I have no idea what you were looking for with this question but just because you disagree with the answers doesnt mean that you are right and others are wrong, because frankly, I sense that you proposed to question to start conflict in order to get your point across more so than to challenge anyone.

MrsKellyPierce

12-29-2012, 08:55 AM

sherm13

12-29-2012, 08:56 AM

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 09:06 AM

Here is his answer. Sure, its vague but is an answer: "If a site's name is Shemale, Tranny, TS, Trassexual, or any other term people rightfully or wrongfully use to advertise TS should only feature TS women. If a site includes TV men then the site needs a different name. M2F transsexuals are women. TVs are not women.

Being a TS is required to be on a TS site with the sole exception of the person's hardcore partner. However, the scene should contain at least one TS."

My intrepretation of that is those who are in transition to being a woman as opposed to crossdressers off of Craiglist. That is all I can come away with from this answer, anyway.

The question was what qualifies to be on a TS porn site. It reads almost like a "What models would you showcase if you owned a TS pornsite" question. You seem upset that lots of posters prefer breast implants and collagen ejections over other types of models. People are attracted to what they are attracted to, so why fight it. I have no idea what you were looking for with this question but just because you disagree with the answers doesnt mean that you are right and others are wrong, because frankly, I sense that you proposed to question to start conflict in order to get your point across more so than to challenge anyone.

Well, I hope you don't consider yourself a Jedi because your senses are completely wrong.

I didn't propose the question to start conflict. It is directly related to Franklin's statement that TV's don't belong on TS sites. The question then becomes, how does one distinguish between the two, in other words, what disqualifies a "TV" from being featured on a "TS" site or vice versa?

You must take the CONTEXT of where the question was posted into consideration. Why would I possibly be asking "What models would you showcase..." given the context of what I was saying?

I have already stated, numerous times now, that I don't care AT ALL about a person's preferences about what they consider to be attractive or unattractive, that includes preferences about breast size, cock size, how low the balls hang, pretty fingernails, smooth skin, etc. etc. etc. I don't care one bit. Personally, I don't even care if you make that distinction based upon race. Yeah, I said it. Some people really like Asian girls, some do not. That is a PREFERENCE.

I care about when someone makes a blanket statement that "TV's do not belong on TS sites" and then does not have the moral courage to clearly state how they define and differentiate between the two terms. That is not a PREFERENCE... it is a judgement.

I've just brushed my teeth so that means bed. must. be. near.

sherm13

12-29-2012, 09:14 AM

Well, I hope you don't consider yourself a Jedi because your senses are completely wrong.

I didn't propose the question to start conflict. It is directly related to Franklin's statement that TV's don't belong on TS sites. The question then becomes, how does one distinguish between the two, in other words, what disqualifies a "TV" from being featured on a "TS" site or vice versa?

You must take the CONTEXT of where the question was posted into consideration. Why would I possibly be asking "What models would you showcase..." given the context of what I was saying?

I have already stated, numerous times now, that I don't care AT ALL about a person's preferences about what they consider to be attractive or unattractive, that includes preferences about breast size, cock size, how low the balls hang, pretty fingernails, smooth skin, etc. etc. etc. I don't care one bit.

I care about when someone makes a blanket statement that "TV's do not belong on TS sites" and then does not have the moral courage to clearly state how they define and differentiate between the two terms.

I've just brushed my teeth so that means bed. must. be. near.

If that was your intention, you should have phrased the question differently. You obviously do care about peoples preferences, otherwise you wouldnt have gotten mad with some of the responses, or even have asked the question to begin with. If you honestly thought the way that you went about this question was not going to cause conflict, then I feel sorry for you.

buckjohnson

12-29-2012, 10:04 AM

WendyWilliams

12-29-2012, 10:11 AM

I am the one with the Degree in Marketing and I assure you I have used my degree to take a product, ME, and turn it into a business via the skills I learned in College. Lifes skills? Get the fuck out of here. I have used those skills obtained to work for the IRS for four years working in HR and tax preparation and then moved onto the Adult side. And I commented on my Degree because Franklin said I was stupid, furthest thing from the truth. I am one of the most successful TS models business wise and I did that MARKETING me who who didnt fit the "look", "size" or "popularity" of many models that have come and gone.

And as a business owner, model, publicist for 5 models and one of the largest TS companies, my own toy line, website, affiliate, etc I can tell you that his statement about stats concerning solo scenes vs hardcore was WRONG according to my producing of not only website but DVD scenes via the sales, VOD, and signups I receive.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 10:45 AM

buckjohnson

12-29-2012, 10:52 AM

WW, I was joking. I respect your skills and what you have accomplished. As you know, I do not like your film projects and subject matter, but its is your huste, its legal, and you are good at it. Just not thirsty about hardcore scenes. Franklin was wrong about causation but you cant ignore the cats passion. Plus what he was commenting about was a sort of standard deviation between solo and hardcore scenes and the producers wrongful use of sales as their data points w/o including other varibles size of population, costs, pricing, marketing, thirstiness, time of the year, economic conditions, thinking about who is sending emails to our CIA director, why Homeland went off course late in the year, who can point a glock at a child, and other random thoughts and even quality of content. Obbviously some of these cannot be quantified. And I was not mocking the school shooting tragedy. But like gun sales, porn sales spiked after the school shooting tragedy. So to use sales as the only statistical varible is a little dishonest and a lot of lack of marketing skills. You want a repeat customer not a one time buyer, and not understanding the Franklin's of the world, and mocking him, is very short-sighted.

buckjohnson

12-29-2012, 10:55 AM

And Franklin, play fair. You should never mock a person's journey. You are being ornery for just cause... respect a person accomplishment and appreciate a person's effort.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 01:06 PM

@ Seanachi, are you trying to make call out peeople? Okay.....I'm only judging this week's updates. Jenna Rachel is the only quality model for this week's updates.

You have even said that you have shot TVs for TS sites. How is are they good quality models when they are not TS women?

How is it insane to want quality models? Is everyone going to be in Hazel's league? No. Asking for quality models is very reasonable.

Do you think Black T-Girls have a good amount of quality models? I'm so curious about this answer.

Oh fuck off, you just prove the point that you refuse to listen.
In YOUR opinion, Jenna Rachels is the only good model on this site this week. Get it, YOUR opinion!

"shemale" is a porn word. We've been over this countless times and your that soggy loaf you use for a brain, still can't absorb that "shemale" does not mean "transsexual". We almost never use lifestyle TV's but will use girls early in in transition or considering transition.

Do I think BTG has a good amount of quality models. Absolutely. That's why it's so successful.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 01:11 PM

Shemale Yum does not say TV Yum. The site's name is Shemale. The site does not say that TV men will be featured. Shemales are TS women. TVs are not transsexuals. A TV should not be featured on any TS site.

NO no no. Why can't you fucking read and absorb instead of basing your own theories of fact. "shemale" does not mean "TS".
Fucking read.

As it is I've just been through all the models for 2012 and did not see one who is clearly a transvestite.

I define and decide what goes on my site "shemale" yum, not your assinine ideas.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 01:14 PM

If a site's name is Shemale, Tranny, TS, Trassexual, or any other term people rightfully or wrongfully use to advertise TS should only feature TS women.

ENTIRELY INCORRECT. That's your wrong definition.

M2F transsexuals are women. TVs are not women.

Correct - at least you have that right.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 01:14 PM

Plus, there are many quality black tgirl models but I do not always see them on Grooby sites.

Name ONE that has appeared on other sites but not on Grooby sites as I can't think of any.

BellaBellucci

12-29-2012, 01:15 PM

Geezus, even I'm not bitching about the word shemale anymore. I still don't like it, and I actually do agree with Franklin's interpretation of the word, but moving on from it isn't going to happen overnight regardless.

Personally, I think Seanchai has made a lot of improvements this year. I don't have a single new complaint.

I know, I know: hell is a bit chilly today. :lol:

Plus, there are many quality black tgirl models but I do not always see them on Grooby sites.

You've never heard of Black T-Girls? Seriously?! :?

~BB~

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 01:16 PM

I find most black girls to be unattractive so I would find most of them to be poor quality models. If I thought otherwise then I would be contradicting myself. I understand why people find certain body types attractive.

I understand why guys are into you. You're a very passable TS woman. However, there are many other black Ts women on the site who are clearly not passable. Some are more buff than John Cena. They don't fit into the typical standards of attractiveness.

Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
They don't fit YOUR typical standards. Clearly someone not into blacks/asians/whites/latins would have a different opinion as would someone not into BBW on a BBW site. So why don't shut up on what you are not qualified to talk about.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 01:18 PM

ALL tgirl consumers judge girls on their LOOKS. All porn consumers judge actors on their appearance. Is this a suddenly a new concept??

No - that's exactly the concept. What Franklin can't get into his noggin is that different consumers find different models attractive. While he puts Hazel Tucker at the top of this list (or near) there are many who just don't find her that attractive and have others much higher, regardless of what Franklin judges them on,

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 01:19 PM

However, consumers want the best looking models. There is nothing wrong with wanting the best girls like Hazel Tuker, Kimber James, Eva Lin, and Sarina Valentina. They're who many consumers want to see featured on every site.

One consumers best looking model might not be another. Why can't you get that into your thick head?

BellaBellucci

12-29-2012, 01:20 PM

Wait you have a degree in marketing....................oh great. Market and Business degrees are known to do worst than every other major in business.

I'm a business/marketing major too, dick. Talented people work regardless of the success rate of their degree.

~BB~

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 02:43 PM

And Franklin, play fair. You should never mock a person's journey. You are being ornery for just cause... respect a person accomplishment and appreciate a person's effort.

I wasn't mocking her. Most people with business and marketing degrees do worst in business than other people with other degrees. It has a lot to do with how those two majors are taught.

Name ONE that has appeared on other sites but not on Grooby sites as I can't think of any.

Until this year Star was one of them.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 02:51 PM

No - that's exactly the concept. What Franklin can't get into his noggin is that different consumers find different models attractive. While he puts Hazel Tucker at the top of this list (or near) there are many who just don't find her that attractive and have others much higher, regardless of what Franklin judges them on,

One consumers best looking model might not be another. Why can't you get that into your thick head?

You still don't get. Peope are unique, and I understand people have different tastes. However, you must realize social standards for attractiveness. Hazel fits the bill under social standards. Most of your models do are up to social standards.

However, something is clearly wrong in the TS porn business when the most popular girls do not appear on other sites, but their own. In the past 3 years Kimber James has been booked only twice by two different companies, Devil's Films and TS Playground. Since coming back with full force Vanitty has only appeared in hardcore scenes for Kink and Evil Angels. As I stated before you were so wrong about Yasmin Lee. In the past two years she also worked with Evil Angels and Devil's Films.

You do not see this problem in straight porn. The top girls in straight porn are shoot and promoted on most sites. The best sites shoot the best and most popular girls.

If Grooby is truly the best then why is it having such a terrible time shooting the most popular Tgirls?

nysprod

12-29-2012, 03:34 PM

But many girls are ts..would you not of considered Domino a ts? She just recently had implants? Many girls start porn to afford transition and become total knockouts as their career goes on.

Domino was a knockout way before she had implants...implants have nothing to do with being feminine...a lot of GG's have little if any breast size but are still very feminine.

Domino was ALWAYS fem, and I can say the same about a lot of the girls who started without implants...they just have "it"...a femininity that's obvious and undeniable.

Moving on, let me say my thoughts on what "belongs" on a site is strictly up to the businessperson who's running the site. No business, even Apple, can create product that everyone is going to like (and buy). There's always going to be negative feedback...it's up to the people who run the business to figure out how to create enough product (and demand) so as to keep that business going.

That being said, look at the popularity of the Sissy/TV/CD thread on what is nominally considered to be a forum dedicated to TS...there obviously is a demand there and if I were running a TS site as a business, I would include product in this vein.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 04:19 PM

Until this year Star was one of them.

So that would be "I cannot" ?

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 04:21 PM

If Grooby is truly the best then why is it having such a terrible time shooting the most popular Tgirls?

You're still a fucking idiot and not listening. How are we having a difficult time shooting the most popular tgirls? We've got the most popular tgirls and continue to work with them. There are always going to be a few girls whom either by preference, budget or contracts aren't going to work for every company - but we shoot the most popular tgirls. Why don't you stick to the point (the point being you're wrong) instead of constantly pulling inaccurate facts out of your ass?

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 04:23 PM

However, you must realize social standards for attractiveness. Hazel fits the bill under social standards. Most of your models do are up to social standards.

Irrelevant what "social standards" are (whose society?) - Hazel does not fall under a classic beauty anyway (and I'm not going to start picking out why). What is relevant is what people want and what sells. End of story. You are incorrect.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 04:24 PM

However, something is clearly wrong in the TS porn business when the most popular girls do not appear on other sites, but their own. In the past 3 years Kimber James has been booked only twice by two different companies, Devil's Films and TS Playground. Since coming back with full force Vanitty has only appeared in hardcore scenes for Kink and Evil Angels. As I stated before you were so wrong about Yasmin Lee. In the past two years she also worked with Evil Angels and Devil's Films.

There is nothing wrong with that. Many of the girls simply choose not to that much work, some are just too difficult to work with and some have different agendas. You've mentioned 3 models out of 100's.

loveboof

12-29-2012, 04:27 PM

We almost never use lifestyle TV's

That means that sometimes you do, so part of what Franklin is concerned about is a valid.

Whether the girls are hot enough is subjective because everyone has different tastes, but the video inspiration & quality is another valid point to make. Of course he is stating his opinion, but he should be free to make it without the whole groobiverse jumping on his back. (Or without his comments being deleted for no apparent reason other than thin skin and sensitive nerves)

@ Krissy, you're being similarly evasive/obtuse by focusing so much energy on the specific definitions. You know full well that it is a grey area to define, but by hammering down on the others for an air-tight explanation is just deflecting their main points. Why don't you attempt to practice some of that 'comprehension' you are so pining for and actually work out the real meat of what it is they are trying to say...

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 04:35 PM

Whereas, Grooby does light editing and goes for more the natural look and a more amateur look. Which many consumers prefer that over the highly edited photos, and others prefer the Playboyesque style.

I'm just saying everyone knows Grooby shoots more natural and Shemaleclub shoots more Playboyesque and puts filters on everything.

Actually I'll pick you up on that, as it's a misnomer. We actually edit photosets "by hand" which means our editors go through each set and adjust the filters/balances to compensate for any lighting issues when they can and then lightly remove some blemishes. For Yum/BlackTgirls and the Asian sites we aim for a realistic look. For Shemale.XXX and Shemale Pornstar we give it a glossier look while still trying to maintain skin tones and such.
I believe some other sites that you've mentioned, tend to use a standardised filter across all their sets, without hand retouching each image. This is a cheaper and easier way to do it and gives a very glossy appearance but also has drawbacks in losing skintone and often losing how a model looks (didn't you lose a bellybutton in a photoedit once Kelly?). My personal choice is the way we do (which is why we do it like that) but I understand others are happier with the over-glossed look (and certainly some of the girls are). In summary, we spend more time on each set than most companies.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 04:38 PM

That means that sometimes you do, so part of what Franklin is concerned about is a valid.

Whether the girls are hot enough is subjective because everyone has different tastes, but the video inspiration & quality is another valid point to make. Of course he is stating his opinion, but he should be free to make it without the whole groobiverse jumping on his back. (Or without his comments being deleted for no apparent reason other than thin skin and sensitive nerves)

I've never said otherwise (although I didn't find one in 300+ sets in 2012). Certainly in a lot of girls early in transition, it's difficult to chose.
What Franklin is saying is invalid as he believes "shemale" means "transsexuals". It doesn't.

I'm happy for him to state his opinion but refuse to agree that his opinion speaks for every porn surfer interested in TS's. He's been proven wrong many many times and needs to appreciate that his opinion is just that, unique to him.

loveboof

12-29-2012, 04:45 PM

I've never said otherwise (although I didn't find one in 300+ sets in 2012). Certainly in a lot of girls early in transition, it's difficult to chose.
What Franklin is saying is invalid as he believes "shemale" means "transsexuals". It doesn't.

I'm happy for him to state his opinion but refuse to agree that his opinion speaks for every porn surfer interested in TS's. He's been proven wrong many many times and needs to appreciate that his opinion is just that, unique to him.

Fair enough. You are right that he doesn't speak for all porn consumers; he speaks for himself. But imo, one voice should still be good enough to be taken seriously.

I don't think the term 'shemale' includes transvestites - but seeing as it is mostly a porn term it probably doesn't matter that much...

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 04:49 PM

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 04:49 PM

Fair enough. You are right that he doesn't speak for all porn consumers; he speaks for himself. But imo, one voice should still be good enough to be taken seriously.

I don't think the term 'shemale' includes transvestites - but seeing as it is mostly a porn term it probably doesn't matter that much...

Each voice has an opinion. I know what Franklin likes and some of our sites cater more towards consumers who have similar if not exact tastes. As I've stated my issue isn't with his "one voice" but with him asserting totally incorrect facts about the industry and having a fantasy that he speaks for all.

LibertyHarkness

12-29-2012, 04:52 PM

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 04:52 PM

I personally don't think that shemale should mean trans woman either.it implies that we're some weird hybrid freak thing and puts an emphasis on masculinity ie.the male part of the word.
It's as offensive as calling someone a he-she

A topic for another day (and another thread) if you must. It's a porn "identifier" word. For better or worse, it's out there.

amberskyi

12-29-2012, 04:57 PM

A topic for another day (and another thread) if you must. It's a porn "identifier" word. For better or worse, it's out there.

As an adult entertainer I've made my peace with the word when used in a porn context.i just think it's funny logic to think that shemale means ts woman.

christianxxx

12-29-2012, 04:59 PM

This is now the 3rd forum that Franklin has managed to create a firestorm of controversy with his thick-headed opinions. lol - He already got kicked off/banned/harassed relentlessly on Brazzers & Naughty America.

1. Franklin - business/marketing majors are nowhere near the bottom of the list of unsuccessful majors - you are an idiot if you think that.

2. Franklin - you forget that the difference between TS and GG porn stars is that the top TS are escorts first and porn stars second. So shooting for companies and scenes isn't their first, second, or third priority. Kimber is a unique case that is a terrible example for you to use.

3. I think its a valid point to say that Shemale Yum is the flagship site of Grooby - and the success of it can be attributed to the "realness" of the models. The lack of glossy photos and lighting is by design. Buddy Wood is an extremely talented photographer. Also, when your goal is to bring your members as many and as wide a variety of TS girls as Shemale Yum does, well you are going to see a whole range of girls. Remember, the level of TS girls varies from one city or country to another. I think Steven said it himself - that Shemale XXX is specifically designed to contain glossier and a higher level of still and video. Steven has hung his hat on improving his network by constantly changing and adding new types, genres, and scenarios. More so than anyone else in the world.

4. Your assertion that Grooby somehow doesn't shoot the top girls is patently absurd. As someone who works for Grooby constantly, I can tell you that I have shot with Jane Marie, Heather Hung, Honey Fox, Adriana Lynn Rush, Hazel Tucker, Kitty Doll, Jordan Jay, Bambi Prescott, Morgan Bailey, Doll, Acadia Veneer, Naughty Nodia, Carmen Moore, Venus Lux, - I could continue but you get the point - and these are all in the past year much less 6 years. Grooby shoots every single girl that they can, as much as they can. Whether that's good enough for you is your own opinion, but I think 99 percent of the world would agree that it's sufficient.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:32 PM

If that was your intention, you should have phrased the question differently. You obviously do care about peoples preferences, otherwise you wouldnt have gotten mad with some of the responses, or even have asked the question to begin with. If you honestly thought the way that you went about this question was not going to cause conflict, then I feel sorry for you.

LONG before this thread, I've already stated quite clearly that I have no problem with people being attracted to different people on whatever basis they have.

The question was phrased properly (and yet remains unanswered) because the original assertion is that TVs don't belong on TS sites. You really don't think the question about what defines the two is then pertinent?

If you don't, then you simply have no grounds for having LOGICAL discourse because you can't see the logical implications of what someone states.

And again with the "mad" (not talking just about your statement). Why does one have to be "mad" or "obtuse" or "attacking" to have a discussion? I'm not mad, angry, upset, or anything even remotely close to it. I rarely just come out and use any sort of derogatory language unless it has already been used by the poster (as in "stupid"). I typically keep things as civil as I can unless it is escalated by another party.

That being said, I'm not a doormat. Some people here like to talk big but have very, very little going around upstairs to actually back it up when they're asked PERTINENT questions.

This is what discussion is... (as in General Discussion). It is people exchanging ideas, QUESTIONS, and hopefully ANSWERS.

MrsKellyPierce

12-29-2012, 05:32 PM

You still don't get. Peope are unique, and I understand people have different tastes. However, you must realize social standards for attractiveness. Hazel fits the bill under social standards. Most of your models do are up to social standards.

However, something is clearly wrong in the TS porn business when the most popular girls do not appear on other sites, but their own. In the past 3 years Kimber James has been booked only twice by two different companies, Devil's Films and TS Playground. Since coming back with full force Vanitty has only appeared in hardcore scenes for Kink and Evil Angels. As I stated before you were so wrong about Yasmin Lee. In the past two years she also worked with Evil Angels and Devil's Films.

You do not see this problem in straight porn. The top girls in straight porn are shoot and promoted on most sites. The best sites shoot the best and most popular girls.

If Grooby is truly the best then why is it having such a terrible time shooting the most popular Tgirls? Kimber mostly shoots for her own website to not weaken her brand. Most guys are gonna join a multi site over a solo.
This makes more demand for her solo site, because honestly you get paid once from a producer, while she/he make sales off it till the website is no longer or DVDs out of print.

MrsKellyPierce

12-29-2012, 05:36 PM

Actually I'll pick you up on that, as it's a misnomer. We actually edit photosets "by hand" which means our editors go through each set and adjust the filters/balances to compensate for any lighting issues when they can and then lightly remove some blemishes. For Yum/BlackTgirls and the Asian sites we aim for a realistic look. For Shemale.XXX and Shemale Pornstar we give it a glossier look while still trying to maintain skin tones and such.
I believe some other sites that you've mentioned, tend to use a standardised filter across all their sets, without hand retouching each image. This is a cheaper and easier way to do it and gives a very glossy appearance but also has drawbacks in losing skintone and often losing how a model looks (didn't you lose a bellybutton in a photoedit once Kelly?). My personal choice is the way we do (which is why we do it like that) but I understand others are happier with the over-glossed look (and certainly some of the girls are). In summary, we spend more time on each set than most companies.
That's why I said heavily photoshop you guys do light editing. I just didn't want to be to detailed and be a accused I am going after Shemaleclub given the history.

MrsKellyPierce

12-29-2012, 05:38 PM

buckjohnson

12-29-2012, 05:49 PM

I wish i understood all this. I am just not smart enough nor porn savvy enough. All i know is that solo sites are boring, most couple sites, esp with black women (not blaming the girls),are poorly shot, horrible locations, lack passion, and seem likes no one wants to be there. Plus there is a lack of professionalism. But it takes a lot of courage to bare all with images that are forever. Heck i by mistake sent a shirtless pic to a few gg and tg friends and when in horror realized what, asked them to delete. All but one complied. So public nudity is something i am not brave nor crazy enough to do. So i admire those who do. It is the producers and the consumers who fork dough for shitty products/content that bothers me

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 05:53 PM

@ Krissy, you're being similarly evasive/obtuse by focusing so much energy on the specific definitions. You know full well that it is a grey area to define, but by hammering down on the others for an air-tight explanation is just deflecting their main points. Why don't you attempt to practice some of that 'comprehension' you are so pining for and actually work out the real meat of what it is they are trying to say...

You are entirely correct in saying that I know it is a gray area to define. You are entirely incorrect in stating that "...hammering down on the others for an air-tight explanation is just deflecting their main points..." Here's why.

If you're going to make a blanket, broad statement such as, "TV's do not belong on any TS site"... then you should be held accountable for how and why you differentiate between the two. The VERY FACT that (in your own words) it is a "gray" area supports my petition for a definition, not the contrary. If it is a "gray" area, then logically, you can't make definitive statements such as the above. It is only when a person's definitions of said terms has been emphatically stated that they have any right at all to make such a statement.

Let us just do this to make things more easy to understand.

I say, "Tomatoes do not belong on vegetable displays." Why is that? Because I would adhere to the scientific definition that tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables. Do I go about telling every grocer that he has his displays improperly marketed? No. Because I realize that the commonly held definition for tomato is "vegetable".

This is not what is happening here though. People here are going in, telling the grocer that his display is all messed up, and when questioned as to why, are saying "Because tomatoes are tomatoes". That is stupidity.

I completely understand what is "trying" to be said... which is my point in asking for a definition. To date, no one has just come out and said that they base their definition of "TS" on looks alone. If someone did, I'd be fine with that and have no argument (although I obviously don't agree with doing that). Why does no one just come out and say that? Because clearly, if that is how you judge a persons "TS" status, then you lose all credibility to talk about the subject at all... And of course, everyone here on HA is an expert on the matter so nobody wants that.

The problem lies when people are being intellectually dishonest and socially ingenuous when they emphatically state that they DON'T judge TS status based upon looks alone, when their whole argument is built upon that very premise (as is the case here). I cannot state this any clearer.

It is not obtuse to ask that a couple of simple questions be answered. It is obtuse to say that you've answered them, when clearly you haven't. It is then cowardly to run away from the discussion under the guise of "taking the high road" because Krissy is just being "obtuse". That is a total cop out and I think anyone familiar with real discussion and debate would agree.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 06:02 PM

I've never said otherwise (although I didn't find one in 300+ sets in 2012). Certainly in a lot of girls early in transition, it's difficult to chose.
What Franklin is saying is invalid as he believes "shemale" means "transsexuals". It doesn't.

I'm happy for him to state his opinion but refuse to agree that his opinion speaks for every porn surfer interested in TS's. He's been proven wrong many many times and needs to appreciate that his opinion is just that, unique to him.

And this is why he needs to define the terms... personally. Still waiting.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 06:06 PM

This is now the 3rd forum that Franklin has managed to create a firestorm of controversy with his thick-headed opinions. lol - He already got kicked off/banned/harassed relentlessly on Brazzers & Naughty America.

Do not slander me. I am not banned from those sites. However, YOU are banned from Brazzers.

Since you want to talk trash to everyone. You're banned from working for many companies because you are known to harass any woman who does not want to work with you. Their reasons may not be just. However, you don't own their bodies. It's their right to not want to work with you.

1. Franklin - business/marketing majors are nowhere near the bottom of the list of unsuccessful majors - you are an idiot if you think that.

You're not very smart yourself. Business/marketing majors are near the bottom in business. Many other degrees are know to do better in business.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37244200/8-reasons-not-to-get-a-business-degree/

2. Franklin - you forget that the difference between TS and GG porn stars is that the top TS are escorts first and porn stars second. So shooting for companies and scenes isn't their first, second, or third priority. Kimber is a unique case that is a terrible example for you to use.

Once again you are wrong. Kimber is a great example. It's true that many TS are escorts first. The fact that she has THREE(I forgot about one earlier) scenes in the past 3 years from other companies is very bad.

Sarina Valentina is a similar example. This year she only appeared in scenes for TS Playground, Devil's Films, and Evil Angel. She did not appear on any top TS site. She only has one set with Grooby and hasn't been back since. That was years ago. She has never appeared on Strokers. Tomcat at TS Seduction hasn't shot her in over a year and more importantly has not shot any white TS women in two months(it will be 4 months because I looked at their booking calendar). She has not been shot by Reality Junkies.

4. Your assertion that Grooby somehow doesn't shoot the top girls is patently absurd. As someone who works for Grooby constantly, I can tell you that I have shot with Jane Marie, Heather Hung, Honey Fox, Adriana Lynn Rush, Hazel Tucker, Kitty Doll, Jordan Jay, Bambi Prescott, Morgan Bailey, Doll, Acadia Veneer, Naughty Nodia, Carmen Moore, Venus Lux, - I could continue but you get the point - and these are all in the past year much less 6 years. Grooby shoots every single girl that they can, as much as they can. Whether that's good enough for you is your own opinion, but I think 99 percent of the world would agree that it's sufficient.

Wow your top list is total BS. Bambi Prescott, Doll, Acadia Veneer, Heather Hung, Honey Fox, Carmen Moore, and Venus Lux are not top girls. They are good pornstars. I'm not doubt that. They're just not at the top at this moment. Their popuarlity does not come close to Jesse, Kimber James, Sarina Valentina, TS, Eva Lin, Hazel Tucker, Amy Daly, etc. Again I'm not saying these girls are bad. They are not top girls.

Bambi Prescott and Heather Hung are terrible examples. I can't believe someone would even say they were that popular. They're not in the popularity league as most of the girls you mention.

Some of these girls are rising to that level. They're not there yet.

The only two on the list I agree with you are Morgan Bailey and Jane Marie. That's it.

Genetic

12-29-2012, 06:09 PM

1. The quality of TS porn.
Is it the same quality (in terms of budget, lighting, editing, HD etc) as straight porn? Generally no. Should it be able to win awards? Of course it should! It's kinda like saying that non-English spoken films shouldn't win Academy Awards. TS porn is never going to be in the same catagories as straight porn, so what's the problem with it being open to competition? Realistically TS porn is a niche market and will never have the budget of straight porn so it's probably never going to have the same production values.

2. The quality of the performers
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder is the bottom line here. Yeah certain girls stand out above others but that's true of straight porn too and you can't just have sites shooting the same 5 girls over and over.

3. Terminology
The last few days have been interesting. Amy Daly has said on Twitter that she finds the term "Tranny" offensive which is ok, cause that's her opinion and she's entitled to find it offensive. However, she's done two films with the word "Tranny" in the title so I can't help but think that it's not *that* offensive. Realistically some terms are always going to be around in porn that people aren't happy with but porn and real life are two different things. I'm sure straight porn stars wouldn't be happy to be called a "cumdumpster" in real life but when it comes to work it's different and perhaps that's Amy's view too. However criticising websites for using the term seems a little odd to me.

A few girls have said they find "shemale" offensive but yet yet the description for this very site is "Guide to Shemales and Transexuals", so why come here if you're that offended by the term? I mean this as a genuine question, not as an argument. I'm sure FRANKLIN and other black members of this site wouldn't hang around on forums or pose for sites called "N*ggerlover" or something else derogatory and offenseive, so why would the TS members here produce content for sites/DVDs that offend them?

4. Solo vs Hardcore
Someone has said in this thread and it may have been FRANKLIN that consumers will buy what is available to them. So, if they want to see a performer but that performer only does solo then the solo stuff will sell even if the customer's preference is for hardcore.

To address what (I think) Wendy said about solo being more popular than hardcore, I'm actually quite surprised by that. However, I think there are elements to look at regarding the hardcore content. For example, some guys will only watch a ts solo or with a GG while other guys will watch a ts with a man. Personally I'm not into solo scenes and I won't watch ts porn where a man is being topped as it's just not my thing.

So if I have a choice between a solo disc or a disc which features guys being topped I'll go with solo cause I'd prefer that. It doesn't mean I dislike hardcore, it's just that the particular hardcore on offer doesn't cater to me.

5. TS vs TV
I personally disagree with TVs being on "shemale" sites as well as I feel it's dishonest. Referring to a performer in feminine terms is recognising their chosen gender out of respect, but to call a TV "she" is presumably demeaning to every TS out there as it's basically saying there is no difference between a man in a wig and a TS.

It can be argued that "shemale" is a subjective term, but what exactly is the "she" bit in "shemale" if the performer is a man? If I put on a wig and some lipstick does that make me a shemale? Of course not.

While I'm trying to avoid getting involved in this thread I can't leave this alone -

The question then becomes, how does one distinguish between the two, in other words, what disqualifies a "TV" from being featured on a "TS" site or vice versa?

Because they are two distinctly different things. By your logic you are a TV and so is every girl on this site if you consider the terms to be interchangeable. A TV is a crossdresser - a man in women's clothing. A transexual is someone who was born one gender but identifies with the other gender. Why does this need to be explained to someone transgendered you should know :P

MrsKellyPierce

12-29-2012, 06:12 PM

1. The quality of TS porn.
Is it the same quality (in terms of budget, lighting, editing, HD etc) as straight porn? Generally no. Should it be able to win awards? Of course it should! It's kinda like saying that non-English spoken films shouldn't win Academy Awards. TS porn is never going to be in the same catagories as straight porn, so what's the problem with it being open to competition? Realistically TS porn is a niche market and will never have the budget of straight porn so it's probably never going to have the same production values.

2. The quality of the performers
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder is the bottom line here. Yeah certain girls stand out above others but that's true of straight porn too and you can't just have sites shooting the same 5 girls over and over.

3. Terminology
The last few days have been interesting. Amy Daly has said on Twitter that she finds the term "Tranny" offensive which is ok, cause that's her opinion and she's entitled to find it offensive. However, she's done two films with the word "Tranny" in the title so I can't help but think that it's not *that* offensive. Realistically some terms are always going to be around in porn that people aren't happy with but porn and real life are two different things. I'm sure straight porn stars wouldn't be happy to be called a "cumdumpster" in real life but when it comes to work it's different and perhaps that's Amy's view too. However criticising websites for using the term seems a little odd to me.

A few girls have said they find "shemale" offensive but yet yet the description for this very site is "Guide to Shemales and Transexuals", so why come here if you're that offended by the term? I mean this as a genuine question, not as an argument. I'm sure FRANKLIN and other black members of this site wouldn't hang around on forums or pose for sites called "N*ggerlover" or something else derogatory and offenseive, so why would the TS members here produce content for sites/DVDs that offend them?

4. Solo vs Hardcore
Someone has said in this thread and it may have been FRANKLIN that consumers will buy what is available to them. So, if they want to see a performer but that performer only does solo then the solo stuff will sell even if the customer's preference is for hardcore.

To address what (I think) Wendy said about solo being more popular than hardcore, I'm actually quite surprised by that. However, I think there are elements to look at regarding the hardcore content. For example, some guys will only watch a ts solo or with a GG while other guys will watch a ts with a man. Personally I'm not into solo scenes and I won't watch ts porn where a man is being topped as it's just not my thing.

So if I have a choice between a solo disc or a disc which features guys being topped I'll go with solo cause I'd prefer that. It doesn't mean I dislike hardcore, it's just that the particular hardcore on offer doesn't cater to me.

5. TS vs TV
I personally disagree with TVs being on "shemale" sites as well as I feel it's dishonest. Referring to a performer in feminine terms is recognising their chosen gender out of respect, but to call a TV "she" is presumably demeaning to every TS out there as it's basically saying there is no difference between a man in a wig and a TS.

It can be argued that "shemale" is a subjective term, but what exactly is the "she" bit in "shemale" if the performer is a man? If I put on a wig and some lipstick does that make me a shemale? Of course not.

While I'm trying to avoid getting involved in this thread I can't leave this alone -

Because they are two distinctly different things. By your logic you are a TV and so is every girl on this site if you consider the terms to be interchangeable. A TV is a crossdresser - a man in women's clothing. A transexual is someone who was born one gender but identifies with the other gender. Why does this need to be explained to someone transgendered you should know :P
I personally don't find any of the terminology shemale, tranny, chick with dick, etc from a porn standpoint.

I find it offensive in everyday life, if a guy was to walk up to me and say your a hot shemale or a hot chick with a dick. That would be offensive and get him closed down fast.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 06:13 PM

I am late to the party but I want to comment. Franklin is right about the quality of TG porn. And sorry Wendy S, but he was right about his analysis about stats, it just that he explanations and reasoning was a little flawed and he confused causality. But he makes up for it with passion and his rhetoric and his stand to call it as he sees it. I took stats 101 (worse class, after physiology, I have ever taken and about 3 or 4 other statistical classes. I also collected data for the State of Ohio and developed it's first AIDS questionnaire...and did it using Lotus) and w/o getting bogged down by stat theories, philosophies and logic, Franklin was correct. Also someone mentioned getting a degree in marketing. That is like saying getting a degree in couch on the porch drunkenness or throwing empties in the yard theory. Fun, interesting, but does not contribute to life’s skills. Finally, the producers and their models, sets, poses, and content leave a lot to be desired.

Sorry, total tangent (what else is new, right?) but this made me laugh...

"...Franklin was right about his analysis about stats..."

"...it is just that [sic] he explanations and reasoning was a little flawed and he confused causality..."

So, what you're really saying is that he was wrong. If your explanations and reasoning are flawed, then isn't your answer, in fact, incorrect?

This is the world of logic that we live in today. Everybody is a winner and nobody is ever wrong. If you don't score as many points as the other team, guess what... you've lost the game and you go away without a trophy.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 06:16 PM

I personally don't think that shemale should mean trans woman either.it implies that we're some weird hybrid freak thing and puts an emphasis on masculinity ie.the male part of the word.
It's as offensive as calling someone a he-she

A point that I made HERE:

"Shemales are TS women." - Franklin
This statement should be inherently offensive to just about anybody who considers themselves to be TS, but I'll just give it to you for the sake of this conversation. Fine. Given.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 06:21 PM

Girls with solo sites dont always want to shoot on other sites that often simply as they dont want to dilute themselves and not bring sales to their own site ..

in the market of solo websites its much harder to get people to sign up than compared to multigirl sites ...so its in the models interest to focus their scenes on their own sites to drive members to them .. if they keep appearing on grooby/smc/strokers etc then what incentive is their for a fan to sign up to the solo site .......

Kimber mostly shoots for her own website to not weaken her brand. Most guys are gonna join a multi site over a solo.
This makes more demand for her solo site, because honestly you get paid once from a producer, while she/he make sales off it till the website is no longer or DVDs out of print.

I understand girls don't want to dilute themselves. They want a strong brand name. How would it hurt a girl's brand by shooting even a few scenes a year for other companies?

Consumers will eventually want to see something different. Being different may require someone to work with someone else. Some consumers want to see these girls work with different producers. I'm not a fan of Joey. However, a lot of consumers want to see girls work with him.

This can create problems for the consumer depending on his or her taste. As this somewhat goes back to my thread about a lack of white American TS women on network sites with the exception of Grooby and Shemale Strokers. Right now people who want to see white American TS women can only get new content by joining solo sites. In the past few months nobody else is shooting White American women.

Kelly, I am a bit confused by this one payment. Is it one payment per scene, % of each members' subscription fee, % in DVD sales, etc. :confused:

MrsKellyPierce

12-29-2012, 06:24 PM

I understand girls don't want to dilute themselves. They want a strong brand name. How would it hurt a girl's brand by shooting even a few scenes a year for other companies?

Consumers will eventually want to see something different. Being different may require someone to work with someone else. Some consumers want to see these girls work with different producers. I'm not a fan of Joey. However, a lot of consumers want to see girls work with him.

This can create problems for the consumer depending on his or her taste. As this somewhat goes back to my thread about a lack of white American TS women on network sites with the exception of Grooby and Shemale Strokers. Right now people who want to see white American TS women can only get new content by joining solo sites. In the past few months nobody else is shooting White American women.

Kelly, I am a bit confused by this one payment. Is it one payment per scene, % of each members' subscription fee, % in DVD sales, etc. :confused:
No it's a flat fee between 800 to 2000 depending on the company and the scene.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 06:26 PM

I personally don't find any of the terminology shemale, tranny, chick with dick, etc from a porn standpoint.

I find it offensive in everyday life, if a guy was to walk up to me and say your a hot shemale or a hot chick with a dick. That would be offensive and get him closed down fast.

What if I called you a hot white chick? Would you still beat me up? I love aggressive women. :Bowdown:

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 06:28 PM

No it's a flat fee between 800 to 2000 depending on the company and the scene.

Sorry for asking so many questions. How does the T-Girl Network work? If a member buys the $35 full network access then how would the money be divided? :confused:

MrsKellyPierce

12-29-2012, 06:30 PM

Sorry for asking so many questions. How does the T-Girl Network work? If a member buys the $35 full network access then how would the money be divided? :confused:
I'll let Wendy or someone like that explain how it works.

I don't want to be caught in any drama or be accused of going after SMC

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 06:36 PM

Because they are two distinctly different things. By your logic you are a TV and so is every girl on this site if you consider the terms to be interchangeable. A TV is a crossdresser - a man in women's clothing. A transexual is someone who was born one gender but identifies with the other gender. Why does this need to be explained to someone transgendered you should know :P

No.

I have never stated that the two are interchangeable and the same thing. Nor have I ever implied that logically. In fact, I have already voiced an opinion that I would agree with Amberskyi's definition of a TV as someone who dresses up for sexual thrill only (but would add a couple of other reasons as well).

What I have stated emphatically, is that YOU, not knowing the individual PERSONALLY, cannot accurately make the determination of "TV" or "TS". If you do, you're doing it on the basis of looks alone. All I ask is that if you do that, then admit it.

A PERSONAL accounting of how one defines the two IS necessary for the purposes of an ACTUAL DISCUSSION (especially here) because if you leave the terms undefined, you are leaving them open to interpretation, which as you can see, is widely contested.

If I ventured into the Politics Arena here and made a bunch of inflammatory statements about the Democratic Party, but began with, "I'm a Democrat BUT... blah blah blah..." It would not be very long before someone asked the question, "So you call yourself a Democrat... what are you defining that as?"

It is the same here. You cannot make observations based upon personal judgements and then cry foul when someone asks for an accounting of how you arrived at those judgements.

Does that answer your question?

loveboof

12-29-2012, 06:52 PM

You are entirely correct in saying that I know it is a gray area to define. You are entirely incorrect in stating that "...hammering down on the others for an air-tight explanation is just deflecting their main points..." Here's why.

If you're going to make a blanket, broad statement such as, "TV's do not belong on any TS site"... then you should be held accountable for how and why you differentiate between the two. The VERY FACT that (in your own words) it is a "gray" area supports my petition for a definition, not the contrary. If it is a "gray" area, then logically, you can't make definitive statements such as the above. It is only when a person's definitions of said terms has been emphatically stated that they have any right at all to make such a statement.

Let us just do this to make things more easy to understand.

I say, "Tomatoes do not belong on vegetable displays." Why is that? Because I would adhere to the scientific definition that tomatoes are fruits, not vegetables. Do I go about telling every grocer that he has his displays improperly marketed? No. Because I realize that the commonly held definition for tomato is "vegetable".

This is not what is happening here though. People here are going in, telling the grocer that his display is all messed up, and when questioned as to why, are saying "Because tomatoes are tomatoes". That is stupidity.

I completely understand what is "trying" to be said... which is my point in asking for a definition. To date, no one has just come out and said that they base their definition of "TS" on looks alone. If someone did, I'd be fine with that and have no argument (although I obviously don't agree with doing that). Why does no one just come out and say that? Because clearly, if that is how you judge a persons "TS" status, then you lose all credibility to talk about the subject at all... And of course, everyone here on HA is an expert on the matter so nobody wants that.

The problem lies when people are being intellectually dishonest and socially ingenuous when they emphatically state that they DON'T judge TS status based upon looks alone, when their whole argument is built upon that very premise (as is the case here). I cannot state this any clearer.

It is not obtuse to ask that a couple of simple questions be answered. It is obtuse to say that you've answered them, when clearly you haven't. It is then cowardly to run away from the discussion under the guise of "taking the high road" because Krissy is just being "obtuse". That is a total cop out and I think anyone familiar with real discussion and debate would agree.

If tomatoes were sentient, intelligent creatures who found it strongly offensive to be associated with vegetables, then it would be down to the greengrocer to correctly label and display the fruit. You would not expect the average, ill-informed consumer to provide pitch perfect definitions.

This is what you are asking of the porn consumers in this discussion. You seem to be refusing them the right of objecting to the disingenuous marketing of transvestites as transsexuals simply because they cannot tell the fruit from the vegetables.

Does it matter what their definitions are when Seanchai has already confirmed that he has used TV's in his websites a number of times? They are able to make that 'blanket statement' because it has been confirmed by the website owner to be the case - That precludes the need for their personal 'accountability' of what defines what.

Now, seeing as you are apparently the logic police in this discussion, can you answer me why you think it is still important for them to be personally accountable with a definition?

ed_jaxon

12-29-2012, 07:02 PM

Not much to tell really. I went to a place called "Ember's" here in PDX because my photo shoot got interrupted with this stuff but I was all dressed up pretty like.

Continuing the conversation inside, I was typing away at my phone screen and this guy next to me kept staring at me and doing that "oops I touched your leg" thing that guys do.

Anyway, chatted with him for a while, had a drink, went back to his place, and what can I say... I'm now a one night stand slut :) Thank you very much. Good night.

Best post in this thread. Thanks Krissy

sherm13

12-29-2012, 07:07 PM

Name ONE that has appeared on other sites but not on Grooby sites as I can't think of any.

Ok, I looked at the preview section and the content is vastly improved from a few years ago, when I made that assumption. I dont have a list of every single girl on BlackTGirls.com but there are a lot of the bigger names on the site. I didnt see Paris Pirelli in the previews, but that is all I can come up with and she could still be on the site.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 07:09 PM

Ok, I looked at the preview section and the content is vastly improved from a few years ago, when I made that assumption. I dont have a list of every single girl on BlackTGirls.com but there are a lot of the bigger names on the site. I didnt see Paris Pirelli in the previews, but that is all I can come up with and she could still be on the site.

She does have a hardcore scene on shemalepornstar. Sadly its gonzo. :(

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 07:14 PM

Ok, I looked at the preview section and the content is vastly improved from a few years ago, when I made that assumption. I dont have a list of every single girl on BlackTGirls.com but there are a lot of the bigger names on the site. I didnt see Paris Pirelli in the previews, but that is all I can come up with and she could still be on the site.

8 sets on BlackTgirls from 2005-2011 (probably due her back in).
1 hardcore on Shemale Pornstar in 2010
I think she also appeared on transexdomination.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 07:15 PM

She does have a hardcore scene on shemalepornstar. Sadly its gonzo. :(

It's not gonzo.
How many times in one thread are you going to be wrong?

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 07:28 PM

If tomatoes were sentient, intelligent creatures who found it strongly offensive to be associated with vegetables, then it would be down to the greengrocer to correctly label and display the fruit. You would not expect the average, ill-informed consumer to provide pitch perfect definitions.

This is what you are asking of the porn consumers in this discussion. You seem to be refusing them the right of objecting to the disingenuous marketing of transvestites as transsexuals simply because they cannot tell the fruit from the vegetables.

Does it matter what their definitions are when Seanchai has already confirmed that he has used TV's in his websites a number of times? They are able to make that 'blanket statement' because it has been confirmed by the website owner to be the case - That precludes the need for their personal 'accountability' of what defines what.

Now, seeing as you are apparently the logic police in this discussion, can you answer me why you think it is still important for them to be personally accountable with a definition?

Sure. Watch how easy it is to simply ANSWER a question when it has been posed.

BEGIN ANSWER - "Does it matter what their definitions are when Seanchai has already confirmed that he has used TV's in his websites a number of times?"
Yes, it does matter. One is a CONSUMER and the other is the OWNER. Of course the owner has the right to make decisions based upon any number of reasons why someone should or should not be included on a site. The consumer, beyond voting with a dollar, does not.
END ANSWER

BEGIN ANSWER - "...can you answer me why you think it is still important for them to be personally accountable with a definition?..."
It is important because it goes to the heart of the matter about how Franklin (or anyone) is making that judgement call. You cannot make any judgement call AT ALL unless you have a definition in mind against which you're comparing. I am asking him to state that definition in writing and admit that he makes it based upon looks alone.

In Franklin's case, I assume (have to since it has not been defined) it is someone like KJ or SV that makes up what a TS is. The assertion he has implied that others, who do not fit that bill do not belong on TS sites, is offensive. Girls who shoot for the site(s) do not consider themselves "TV men" as has been stated, regardless of what outsiders may think, and it is offensive to label girls on the site who you simply do not find attractive "TV men" because of that.

"Do not belong", as stated and used here is just a euphemism for saying "aren't TS".
END ANSWER (see how easy that is!)

THE REST OF THE STUFF.
Your tomato-ey stuff... nonsense and you know it. Not the point that was being made.

I AM NOT "...refusing the right of objecting to the disingenuous marking of transvestites as transsexuals..." at all. People can object all they want. What I have a problem with is saying that girls who are found unattractive for whatever reason are simply "TV men" and don't belong on the site.

Please quote to me where I stated that persons have no right to object.

I AM stating that it is impossible for the consumer to make that distinction on anything but looks alone, since you don't know the person's TS status. You know how she looks, you know how she looks naked, you know maybe her name, you know maybe an approximation about where she lives... but beyond that, you don't know anything about her.

For the past couple of years [edit: newly shot], I've read EVERY SINGLE bio / intro page for EVERY SINGLE girl shot on EVERY SINGLE Grooby site. Not once have I ever seen a girl say, "I'm just doing this for the money and I'm really just a guy in a wig. Go ahead and refer to me as such." The omission of such a request should be respected, especially here on a Grooby owned and operated forum that some of them may frequent.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 07:32 PM

It's not gonzo.
How many times in one thread are you going to be wrong?

Yes, it is. There is no plot. It starts randomly with Christian kissing Paris and they have sex. Thus, it is gonzo. Do you know what you're making?

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 07:40 PM

Yes, it is. There is no plot. It starts randomly with Christian kissing Paris and they have sex. Thus, it is gonzo. Do you know what you're making?

It's not gonzo.
How do you define gonzo?

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 07:43 PM

It's not gonzo.
How do you define gonzo?

Oh good god. You're starting to sound like me. Good luck with that.

sherm13

12-29-2012, 07:49 PM

Sure. Watch how easy it is to simply ANSWER a question when it has been posed.

BEGIN ANSWER - "Does it matter what their definitions are when Seanchai has already confirmed that he has used TV's in his websites a number of times?"
Yes, it does matter. One is a CONSUMER and the other is the OWNER. Of course the owner has the right to make decisions based upon any number of reasons why someone should or should not be included on a site. The consumer, beyond voting with a dollar, does not.
END ANSWER

BEGIN ANSWER - "...can you answer me why you think it is still important for them to be personally accountable with a definition?..."
It is important because it goes to the heart of the matter about how Franklin (or anyone) is making that judgement call. You cannot make any judgement call AT ALL unless you have a definition in mind against which you're comparing. I am asking him to state that definition in writing and admit that he makes it based upon looks alone.

In Franklin's case, I assume (have to since it has not been defined) it is someone like KJ or SV that makes up what a TS is. The assertion he has implied that others, who do not fit that bill do not belong on TS sites, is offensive. Girls who shoot for the site(s) do not consider themselves "TV men" as has been stated, regardless of what outsiders may think, and it is offensive to label girls on the site who you simply do not find attractive "TV men" because of that.

"Do not belong", as stated and used here is just a euphemism for saying "aren't TS".
END ANSWER (see how easy that is!)

THE REST OF THE STUFF.
Your tomato-ey stuff... nonsense and you know it. Not the point that was being made.

I AM NOT "...refusing the right of objecting to the disingenuous marking of transvestites as transsexuals..." at all. People can object all they want. What I have a problem with is saying that girls who are found unattractive for whatever reason are simply "TV men" and don't belong on the site.

Please quote to me where I stated that persons have no right to object.

I AM stating that it is impossible for the consumer to make that distinction on anything but looks alone, since you don't know the person's TS status. You know how she looks, you know how she looks naked, you know maybe her name, you know maybe an approximation about where she lives... but beyond that, you don't know anything about her.

For the past couple of years [edit: newly shot], I've read EVERY SINGLE bio / intro page for EVERY SINGLE girl shot on EVERY SINGLE Grooby site. Not once have I ever seen a girl say, "I'm just doing this for the money and I'm really just a guy in a wig. Go ahead and refer to me as such." The omission of such a request should be respected, especially here on a Grooby owned and operated forum that some of them may frequent.

I respect your answer but the main problem Krissy, is that you do not seem to respect the answers of others. You give off the aura that you are more intelligent than others and everyone else is simple-minded. I have to imagine that most reading this forum could easily piece that together.

On a side-note, if you feel that the consumer should not have the right to decide who should appear on the site, then why did you phrase the question to Franklin, who is the consumer?

My answer to that is you just like to cause conflict, otherwise there was no point of asking this question. You answer to the question was consumers shouldnt have the right to dictate which models appear on the site, wasn't it? There is no point having a discussion with you because your main goal is to put everyone down in order to get your opinion across, which you believe is 100% fact.

TSPornFan

12-29-2012, 07:50 PM

It's not gonzo.
How do you define gonzo?

It is gonzo. Gonzo porn is porn without any plot. It's sad that you don't know what you're making.

Gonzo pornography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzo_pornography)

Gonzo films tend to focus far less on the narrative, storyline, plots, extended dialogue, acting, characterization, elaborate costumes and sets, and artistic camerawork commonly found in conventional porn.

loveboof

12-29-2012, 08:06 PM

Sure. Watch how easy it is to simply ANSWER a question when it has been posed.

ANSWER - "Does it matter what their definitions are when Seanchai has already confirmed that he has used TV's in his websites a number of times?"
Yes, it does matter. One is a CONSUMER and the other is the OWNER. Of course the owner has the right to make decisions based upon any number of reasons why someone should or should not be included on a site. The consumer, beyond voting with a dollar, does not.
END ANSWER
Well that one was meant to be rhetorical, but your response wouldn't have answered it if it had actually been a question!

You seem to have answered 'who has the right to do something' rather than the actual question of: 'does it matter; why?'
(poor reading comprehension backatcha)

ANSWER - "...can you answer me why you think it is still important for them to be personally accountable with a definition?..."
It is important because it goes to the heart of the matter about how Franklin (or anyone) is making that judgement call. You cannot make any judgement call AT ALL unless you have a definition in mind against which you're comparing.
Yes. Unless of course the owner has already categorically told us all that he has used 'lifestyle TV's'. Then that personal 'definition in mind' is largely irrelevant because the information is coming from an outside source. At this stage, the 'judgement call' becomes about whether they are comfortable being sold TV's in TS packaging. (so to speak)

END ANSWER (see how easy that is!)

Well it can't be that easy because you seem to have failed yourself! lol

THE REST OF THE STUFF.
Your tomato-ey stuff... nonsense and you know it. Not the point that was being made.

Not nonsense at all. I used your own tomato analogy to rephrase the issue. Why don't you re-read it and see if you can find the 'easy answer' to that conundrum.

What I have a problem with is saying that girls who are found unattractive for whatever reason are simply "TV men" and don't belong on the site.

That's fair enough. Although, I don't recall anyone actually saying that.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 08:15 PM

I respect your answer but the main problem Krissy, is that you do not seem to respect the answers of others. You give off the aura that you are more intelligent than others and everyone else is simple-minded. I have to imagine that most reading this forum could easily piece that together.

On a side-note, if you feel that the consumer should not have the right to decide who should appear on the site, then why did you phrase the question to Franklin, who is the consumer?

My answer to that is you just like to cause conflict, otherwise there was no point of asking this question. You answer to the question was consumers shouldnt have the right to dictate which models appear on the site, wasn't it? There is no point having a discussion with you because your main goal is to put everyone down in order to get your opinion across, which you believe is 100% fact.

BEGIN ANSWER - "...if you feel that the consumer should not have the right to decide who should appear on the site, then why did you phrase the question to Franklin, who is the consumer?"
Because that was not the original sentiment that was expressed. You're taking one conversation and placing it on top of another.

Originally, Franklin was making the blanket statement that TVs should not appear on TS sites. Agreed?

That is FINE. I have no problem with that statement right there. But he didn't stop there. He then went on to imply that those who don't fit a certain proficiency of beauty are "TV men" and thus should not be (read: unworthy) included on the site because they are not truly TS. That is where I have the problem. I don't know how many times I have to say that. THEN the question does become, on what basis are you making that decision (i.e. - give me some definitions) and the request for those definitions is logically pertinent.
END ANSWER

Please.

Tell me in what instance I have "not respected" the ACTUAL answer of others? Tell me where I have "put everyone down" when it hasn't been said to me first? Quote it please and I'll quote back to you where it was said either about me or someone else first in the same thread.

I am intelligent. I am well educated. I am not going to "dumb myself down" for you or anyone here. I do not believe others are simple-minded. I believe that everyone has the capacity to have an actual conversation without making things personal... something which clearly, you do not. I believe in making a point that is thought out, logical, and can be supported by its own merits. I don't believe in generalities. I believe that if you say something on a forum called "General Discussion" you should be open to actually discussing it and defending your points when challenged. I believe that if someone asks you a question, they deserve an answer.

In this thread, I have posed TWO simple questions to a couple of posters. BOTH have not answered (and no, your quote of Franklin is NOT an answer by any debate standard). Both have hurled the "you're just stupid and you're just being obtuse" line because they are unwilling or unable to answer the question simply and accurately.

People may piece together things as you describe... I'm fine with that. Anyone who actually takes the time to read through everything objectively, knows that there is a clear breakdown in logic here that I'm getting at. If you were to take my conversations aside and piece them together with the "supposed answers", in a linear format, it would be comical. You have one side (me) asking a couple of simple questions, and getting insults and dodges back.

So, you're basically saying that the only reason one asks questions is to cause conflict? I mean, that is brilliant. So, I can just go out there and say anything I want and if anyone questions me about it, I can just say, "Oh, you're just trying to cause conflict." Right. That's reasonable.

I love the "there is no point..." line. I am WELL open to ALL discussion with people. As you can see, I ALWAYS try to answer EVERY person who quotes me, regardless of whether I like / dislike their point of view. The facts are, when people are presented with other points of view that challenge their belief structures, they, like you, often just spout off the tired, trite: "There is no point..." because they cannot stand on the merits of their own argument.

GroobySteven

12-29-2012, 08:27 PM

It is gonzo. Gonzo porn is porn without any plot. It's sad that you don't know what you're making.

Gonzo pornography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzo_pornography)

Ok you're getting tiring - it's little wonder that you're banned from so many forums. You chose the one line in that wikipedia article that supported what YOU think gonzo porn is - and again, you are wrong.

Gonzo (originally journalism) is to take the part of the author as first person "in" the narrative. In porn, it's the photographer as the author and gonzo porn is usually where the cameraman becomes a part of the action as a participant and not just a casusal observor or even a "fly on the wall". Ed Powers, early Joey Silvera, Buttman, etc. are gonzo porn. In our niche, Tony Vee, Buddy Wood, Frank etc. have all done gonzo style porns.

Here is the quote you should have pulled from that wikepedia article, the first lines defining gonzo porn, not your cherry picked ones:

"Gonzo pornography is a style of [Pornographic film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that attempts to place the viewer directly into the scene. The name is a reference to Gonzo journalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, in which the reporter is part of the event taking place. By analogy, gonzo pornography puts the camera right into the action — often with one or more of the participants both filming and performing sexual acts — without the usual separation characteristic of conventional porn..."

In the scene with Paris Pirelli, which does have a storyline of a girl waiting for her boyfriend to come and have sex with her, Buddy Wood filming the scene, in no way becomes part of the scene. It's purely Christian and Paris in the scene.

I'm really getting tired of your pedantic bickering here, Franklin. Move on.

giovanni_hotel

12-29-2012, 08:27 PM

sherm13

12-29-2012, 08:29 PM

BEGIN ANSWER - "...if you feel that the consumer should not have the right to decide who should appear on the site, then why did you phrase the question to Franklin, who is the consumer?"
Because that was not the original sentiment that was expressed. You're taking one conversation and placing it on top of another.

Originally, Franklin was making the blanket statement that TVs should not appear on TS sites. Agreed?

That is FINE. I have no problem with that statement right there. But he didn't stop there. He then went on to imply that those who don't fit a certain proficiency of beauty are "TV men" and thus should not be (read: unworthy) included on the site because they are not truly TS. That is where I have the problem. I don't know how many times I have to say that. THEN the question does become, on what basis are you making that decision (i.e. - give me some definitions) and the request for those definitions is logically pertinent.
END ANSWER

Please.

Tell me in what instance I have "not respected" the ACTUAL answer of others? Tell me where I have "put everyone down" when it hasn't been said to me first? Quote it please and I'll quote back to you where it was said either about me or someone else first in the same thread.

I am intelligent. I am well educated. I am not going to "dumb myself down" for you or anyone here. I do not believe others are simple-minded. I believe that everyone has the capacity to have an actual conversation without making things personal... something which clearly, you do not. I believe in making a point that is thought out, logical, and can be supported by its own merits. I don't believe in generalities. I believe that if you say something on a forum called "General Discussion" you should be open to actually discussing it and defending your points when challenged. I believe that if someone asks you a question, they deserve an answer.

In this thread, I have posed TWO simple questions to a couple of posters. BOTH have not answered (and no, your quote of Franklin is NOT an answer by any debate standard). Both have hurled the "you're just stupid and you're just being obtuse" line because they are unwilling or unable to answer the question simply and accurately.

People may piece together things as you describe... I'm fine with that. Anyone who actually takes the time to read through everything objectively, knows that there is a clear breakdown in logic here that I'm getting at. If you were to take my conversations aside and piece them together with the "supposed answers", in a linear format, it would be comical. You have one side (me) asking a couple of simple questions, and getting insults and dodges back.

So, you're basically saying that the only reason one asks questions is to cause conflict? I mean, that is brilliant. So, I can just go out there and say anything I want and if anyone questions me about it, I can just say, "Oh, you're just trying to cause conflict." Right. That's reasonable.

I love the "there is no point..." line. I am WELL open to ALL discussion with people. As you can see, I ALWAYS try to answer EVERY person who quotes me, regardless of whether I like / dislike their point of view. The facts are, when people are presented with other points of view that challenge their belief structures, they, like you, often just spout off the tired, trite: "There is no point..." because they cannot stand on the merits of their own argument.

Are you trying to prove my point?

You insulted my answer by calling it "broad" first off. Then, you state I am unable to have a conservation without it getting personal, which is both ironic and insulting.

I never called you "stupid" or "obtuse." I never insulted your intelligence. I'm pointing out the fact that you are genrally combative and dismissive of anyone else challenging you. Your answer to your own question proves that. It was a set up to get your point across, nothing more.

Asking and answering questions in itself is not conflict. The way in which you have answered and asked questions in this thread is what anyone can see was to start conflict to get your opinion across to those who you see are wrong.

Whatever, I am done arguing with you. There is no point having a discussion with someone who just wants to prove that there opinion is 100% fact. Your question does not have a clear-cut answer and its really just an opinion. This isnt something that only has one answer.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 08:36 PM

Well that one was meant to be rhetorical, but your response wouldn't have answered it if it had actually been a question!

You seem to have answered 'who has the right to do something' rather than the actual question of: 'does it matter; why?'
(poor reading comprehension backatcha)

Yes. Unless of course the owner has already categorically told us all that he has used 'lifestyle TV's'. Then that personal 'definition in mind' is largely irrelevant because the information is coming from an outside source. At this stage, the 'judgement call' becomes about whether they are comfortable being sold TV's in TS packaging. (so to speak)

Well it can't be that easy because you seem to have failed yourself! lol

Not nonsense at all. I used your own tomato analogy to rephrase the issue. Why don't you re-read it and see if you can find the 'easy answer' to that conundrum.

That's fair enough. Although, I don't recall anyone actually saying that.

Good grief. Again, having to actually spell something out for you. Here you go.

The "right to do" speaks to the "does it matter" (the "why" is implied in the "does it matter". Here is why.

The owner has the right to say, "You're not appearing on the site because you wore blue heels and I dislike blue heels." or "You are appearing on the site because I like your fingernails, they're long and pointy." He is the OWNER of the site and thus qualified to make those kinds of decisions.

The CONSUMER of the site DOES NOT have the right to make those types of decisions, and thus, it does matter how they're defining terms upon which they're making petitions for changes in a site's model index by making the personal judgement that people deemed unattractive are "TV" and not truly "TS".

It is not poor reading comprehension, it is you thinking you're clever and me not realizing that you weren't clever enough to string the logic together.

As stated originally, the owner has the right to pick and choose any model for any reason. Thus his definition or admission of using any type of model or any model type is irrelevant. Again, a simple string of logic that you fail to see.

No... you didn't use my original analogy. You CHANGED it with an "IF". You can take just about any analogy, change it with an "IF" modifier, and make it untrue. That is just stupid for you to even debate. Again with the trying to be clever when you're not.

Here is your reading comprehension problem... since you "...cannot recall anyone actually saying that." I warn you, you've got to actually make some logical connections here but for someone of your cleverness, it shouldn't be too difficult. The second statement entirely contradicts the first. Even you should see that.

Franklin:

I cannot respect your opinion about TVs on TS sites. Shemale Yum does not say TV Yum. The site's name is Shemale. The site does not say that TV men will be featured. Shemales are TS women. TVs are not transsexuals. A TV should not be featured on any TS site. and Franklin again:

I clearly said that TVs not belong on TS sites.

I said poor quality TS models should not be in porn. I did not deny or question their status as TS women.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 08:37 PM

Out for a while. Errands to run and things to do today.

Willie Escalade

12-29-2012, 08:46 PM

Can someone define "poor quality TS models"? Some girls one person might like others would not.

As for the "top" girls not appearing on some sites...maybe it's THEIR OWN decision not to. It's similar to Louis Vuitton...they are HIGHLY selective of where their product is released; if you want their stuff, you have to go to the proper places to get it (just as if you want the bootleg stuff you go elsewhere)...

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 08:49 PM

GroobyKrissy, If you can find the actual post it would help, but I thought FRANKLIN was making two distinct points; TVs should NOT be featured on TS sites, and that unattractive TS should not be featured on TS sites.

I don't recall him ever saying unattractive TS were 'TV men'. I'd bet that's a correlation you're making inside your head.

You keep asking for an objective definition of a subjective OBSERVATION, since no one can know from a pic definitively if someone is TG or a CD.

But like many guys on this board, I know a TV when I see one, and it's not really much of an issue of attractiveness. Am I always right in my observation??
NO.

By am I always wrong?? No.

This is what I mean by saying you like to stir shit up for no reason at all because you like to keep some invented controversy going.
You keep arguing over the most basic points that everyone understands, but still haven't been answered to your satisfaction.

My satisfaction would be just what you just stated.

That is all I'm asking for. You judge TS status based upon looks. I don't know why that was so difficult for you to just come out and say originally.

If you think you can know a TV (implied: as opposed to a true TS) when you see one (implied: based upon a picture or series of), then you are making a judgement based upon looks. There is no way around that. And that is fine. That is the way you view people and although I don't agree with doing that, it is fine for you to have that opinion. It is then fine as well for me to say that you have no real credibility when speaking about matters that are TS-related since your only premise for being "TS" is based upon looks.

The facts about being "always right" or "always wrong" is irrelevant. It is the very action of making that judgement call in the first place that I was questioning.

Franklin has NOT made two distinct points. Do a little homework for yourself and read his original post on the matter and then his follow up... I think it is somewhere around page 5 or so. He clearly stated that TV's should not be featured on TS sites and then followed that up by all but stating outright that he considers all unattractive TS to be TV. A bit later he walked that back a tiny bit.

It is not an invented controversy when I can quote you back what you said, ask for an explanation and then am ignored for the rest of the thread. That is cowardice. In all of the heated conversations that I've had with people, once faced with their own words quoted back to them, they've abruptly ended the conversation after hurling an insult or two.

I congratulate you on actually purposefully or mistakenly saying what I postulated in the beginning. People judge TS status based upon looks alone. Whether rightly or wrongly. If you do it, just admit it, own it, and stand by it when you're questioned in the future about it.

GroobyKrissy

12-29-2012, 09:14 PM

Are you trying to prove my point?

You insulted my answer by calling it "broad" first off. Then, you state I am unable to have a conservation without it getting personal, which is both ironic and insulting.

I never called you "stupid" or "obtuse." I never insulted your intelligence. I'm pointing out the fact that you are genrally combative and dismissive of anyone else challenging you. Your answer to your own question proves that. It was a set up to get your point across, nothing more.

Asking and answering questions in itself is not conflict. The way in which you have answered and asked questions in this thread is what anyone can see was to start conflict to get your opinion across to those who you see are wrong.

Whatever, I am done arguing with you. There is no point having a discussion with someone who just wants to prove that there opinion is 100% fact. Your question does not have a clear-cut answer and its really just an opinion. This isnt something that only has one answer.

OK, this last one that then I am really out.

So, by calling your answer "broad" I was insulting you?

I think your answer "The only qualification is for someone to appear on a TS site, whether CD/TS, is to appear feminine and interested in the scene" to the question of "What qualifies you to be on a TS site?" can definitely be categorized as "broad". That's not an insult, it is an observation and I'm sorry you took it that way.

But seriously, "...appear feminine..." "...interested in the scene..." So basically, anyone who can have a convincingly feminine appearance (completely subjective) and is a good actor / actress is qualified to be on a TS site? Even I do not agree with that premise.

You took an obvious (to me at least) OBSERVATION and made it personal, upon which you've based the rest of your conversation with me. If you had just come out in the beginning and said, "I find your statement that my answer is "broad" to be insulting," I would have apologized for the confusion and written something like I wrote above.

I didn't say YOU insulted me. I said it has been done in this thread and used as an excuse to escape having a dialogue.

Your "setup" is laughable. That's not insulting to say by the way so don't take it so. It is more than clear that I will answer anybody who quotes me so you can hardly call it a "setup" if you know the prey is going to walk into the "trap" willingly.

Anyway, so I guess you find any type of discussion to be "combative" and "dismissive". Of course, those actually hurling the insults and doing the actual "dodging"... they're rock stars of debate, right?

The point is this. Debate and discussion are two sided. If one person is asking and answering questions and the other person is just insulting and dodging... well then... draw your own conclusions.

I don'[t have to be 100% correct. As I just stated in a post to Giovanna_hotel, I am satisfied with his answer and consider that discussion closed. I don't have any personal grudges against him and will continue to dialogue with him as he/I see fit. It doesn't change the way that I view him as a person at all. It just gives me some insight on where future posts are coming from and I'll be able to more accurately asses whether a reply should be given or not. That is the power of words... once they're out there, they clear the air.

That is why I ask repeatedly for these definitions. Until they are put down and defined, they are open to interpretation, which you already admit is not "clear-cut". My supposition is that if it is not "clear-cut" in one's mind, then you should either abstain from voicing an opinion on the matter or else clear up your definition and be ready to define it if you do.