UGH lol

[MrsKellyPierce]

Jasadin noone is locking him from doing what he wants, I am just not into it . And shouldn't have to be into it due to it being my personal preference. I didn't make fun of him.

[whatsupwithat]

I don't care that he wears them but I am upfront and tell people exactly what I want and expect if you saw my xpeeps or myspace my dear you would know that. Or seen some of my posts. I make no secret of it and don't apologize for it. It's fine that he likes to do that I'd still be his friend but sexual partner or romantic partner NO

That's cool. Just throwing out my view on things. I have my quirks...body hair and uncleanliness...no way.

And to add I hope I don't bore you with this. I made a poll a few weeks back about is it okay to show yourself just as female on a website and not put somewhere in there you are a transexual and at the time I had no issue with it. Because I feel I am woman, however I'm a woman with a challenge. And not all these men that are messaging me saying I'm hot under the notion I'm a genetic female are up to the challenge once they found out the challenge thats in front of them. So now I have changed it to where I put out there I am a transexual and it surprised many of the men I was talking to but some stuck around to at least talk or some even asked me on a date and then you had the guys that assumed now it would be ten times easier to get some ass from me. But they were surprised when it didn't work like that lol but I also have every tranny chaser in the area messaging me however I'm pretty good at weeding these individuals ou and am patient enough to do so. So it isn't horrible. But back to what I was saying I did feel at one time it was okay to do this, but it is false adverstisement. They don't know I'm a woman with a challenge, it's out of the norm for them, and it's unfair of me to force it upon them with out their knowledge which is how I feel about this guy. I KNOW I KNOW it was long winded but do you understand where I mam coming from?

yeah, totally. i was just speaking from my experience with relationships...good and bad. much peace.

[whatsupwithat]

does he have a shirt like this?

[wombat33]

Wombat of course I do I want my man to shop at VICTORIA's SECRET for me not for himself

LOL

Yeah, I was making a joke, I personally am way freaked out by men in lingerie or panties unless passable, smooth, fem............ts basically or the rare tv.


I wear boxer briefs myself. However girls in boxer briefs can be sexy also.

[MrsKellyPierce]

lol what'supwiththat andwombat

[mazstahj]

[quote="KellyShore"][quote="whatsupwithat"]

it is false adverstisement. They don't know I'm a woman with a challenge, it's out of the norm for them, and it's unfair of me to force it upon them with out their knowledge which is how I feel about this guy. I KNOW I KNOW it was long winded but do you understand where I mam coming from?

I for one agree with what your saying in principle or theory, but IMO there's a fairly big difference in practice.

I'd categorize his lack of initially pronouncing his fetish for dressing in panties to be less of a big deal than a TG woman initially failing to indicate that she is not a genetic female. It's about how people will react to you. I think even if you consider yourself a 'woman,' you have to realize that in the eyes of most people you're very different from a genetic female, and to them this might be a really big deal. The guy who wears panties isn't necessarily intentionally or unintentionally deceiving anyone about who he is fundamentally by failing to reveal his panty fetish from the get-go. I mean, if these two cases were equal then you'd essentialy be expecting everyone with any sort of fetish of any kind to reveal it when they first start chatting with someone, and I think we all know this is pretty unrealistic.

However, that's just how I view it.

[MrsKellyPierce]

[quote="mazstahj"][quote="KellyShore"]

it is false adverstisement. They don't know I'm a woman with a challenge, it's out of the norm for them, and it's unfair of me to force it upon them with out their knowledge which is how I feel about this guy. I KNOW I KNOW it was long winded but do you understand where I mam coming from?

I for one agree with what your saying in principle or theory, but IMO there's a fairly big difference in practice.

I'd categorize his lack of initially pronouncing his fetish for dressing in panties to be less of a big deal than a TG woman initially failing to indicate that she is not a genetic female. It's about how people will react to you. I think even if you consider yourself a 'woman,' you have to realize that in the eyes of most people you're very different from a genetic female, and to them this might be a really big deal. The guy who wears panties isn't necessarily intentionally or unintentionally deceiving anyone about who he is fundamentally by failing to reveal his panty fetish from the get-go. I mean, if these two cases were equal then you'd essentialy be expecting everyone with any sort of fetish of any kind to reveal it when they first start chatting with someone, and I think we all know this is pretty unrealistic.

However, that's just how I view it.

You missed where I said I am still woman with a challenge. It's not about the "WHO I AM" aspect as you put it. Mine is based on genetalia only, not my looks or personality or who I am. My genetalia doesn't make me WHO I AM lol and you obviously need to learn about transexualism no offense darling.

[Phat]

[quote="mazstahj"][quote="KellyShore"]

it is false adverstisement. They don't know I'm a woman with a challenge, it's out of the norm for them, and it's unfair of me to force it upon them with out their knowledge which is how I feel about this guy. I KNOW I KNOW it was long winded but do you understand where I mam coming from?

I for one agree with what your saying in principle or theory, but IMO there's a fairly big difference in practice.

I'd categorize his lack of initially pronouncing his fetish for dressing in panties to be less of a big deal than a TG woman initially failing to indicate that she is not a genetic female. It's about how people will react to you. I think even if you consider yourself a 'woman,' you have to realize that in the eyes of most people you're very different from a genetic female, and to them this might be a really big deal. The guy who wears panties isn't necessarily intentionally or unintentionally deceiving anyone about who he is fundamentally by failing to reveal his panty fetish from the get-go. I mean, if these two cases were equal then you'd essentialy be expecting everyone with any sort of fetish of any kind to reveal it when they first start chatting with someone, and I think we all know this is pretty unrealistic.

However, that's just how I view it.

I beleive if a ts woman is looking for a real relationship they should NOT mark themselves as TS from the get go. A lot of guys are into TS women as a fetish, it's not genuine attraction, and horrible grounds to base a relationship on. When the appropriate time comes to tell the guy about what I see as a simple birth defect - and he cannot handle it - he's probably got a lot of insecurities to work out for himself anyway.

[MrsKellyPierce]

[quote="Phat"][quote="mazstahj"]

it is false adverstisement. They don't know I'm a woman with a challenge, it's out of the norm for them, and it's unfair of me to force it upon them with out their knowledge which is how I feel about this guy. I KNOW I KNOW it was long winded but do you understand where I mam coming from?

I for one agree with what your saying in principle or theory, but IMO there's a fairly big difference in practice.

I'd categorize his lack of initially pronouncing his fetish for dressing in panties to be less of a big deal than a TG woman initially failing to indicate that she is not a genetic female. It's about how people will react to you. I think even if you consider yourself a 'woman,' you have to realize that in the eyes of most people you're very different from a genetic female, and to them this might be a really big deal. The guy who wears panties isn't necessarily intentionally or unintentionally deceiving anyone about who he is fundamentally by failing to reveal his panty fetish from the get-go. I mean, if these two cases were equal then you'd essentialy be expecting everyone with any sort of fetish of any kind to reveal it when they first start chatting with someone, and I think we all know this is pretty unrealistic.

However, that's just how I view it.

I beleive if a ts woman is looking for a real relationship they should NOT mark themselves as TS from the get go. A lot of guys are into TS women as a fetish, it's not genuine attraction, and horrible grounds to base a relationship on. When the appropriate time comes to tell the guy about what I see as a simple birth defect - and he cannot handle it - he's probably got a lot of insecurities to work out for himself anyway.

Yeah these were my sentiments too, I just think it's kind of unfair though. If a guy is really feeling you and he believes you to be the girl he was looking for, and then he finds out you aren't exatly what he was looking for since you are that girl witha challenge. It's gotta be rather disheartening and disappointing for the guy.

[mazstahj]

[quote="KellyShore"][quote="mazstahj"]

it is false adverstisement. They don't know I'm a woman with a challenge, it's out of the norm for them, and it's unfair of me to force it upon them with out their knowledge which is how I feel about this guy. I KNOW I KNOW it was long winded but do you understand where I mam coming from?

I for one agree with what your saying in principle or theory, but IMO there's a fairly big difference in practice.

I'd categorize his lack of initially pronouncing his fetish for dressing in panties to be less of a big deal than a TG woman initially failing to indicate that she is not a genetic female. It's about how people will react to you. I think even if you consider yourself a 'woman,' you have to realize that in the eyes of most people you're very different from a genetic female, and to them this might be a really big deal. The guy who wears panties isn't necessarily intentionally or unintentionally deceiving anyone about who he is fundamentally by failing to reveal his panty fetish from the get-go. I mean, if these two cases were equal then you'd essentialy be expecting everyone with any sort of fetish of any kind to reveal it when they first start chatting with someone, and I think we all know this is pretty unrealistic.

However, that's just how I view it.

You missed where I said I am still woman with a challenge. It's not about the "WHO I AM" aspect as you put it. Mine is based on genetalia only, not my looks or personality or who I am. My genetalia doesn't make me WHO I AM lol and you obviously need to learn about transexualism no offense darling.

You missed where I said it's about how people react to you. How you define yourself is well and good and it's your right to do so in any way you choose. But we're talking about interaction and communication with other people, and therefore what's the point in considering it unless we consider what their reactions to us might be, and how their reactions might differ from what we thought they'd be given our intentions? Where else would this be more obviously valid than in a case of mistaken genetalia? lol...

You either misinterpreted what I said or maybe I wasn't clear enough, and if so, sorry. But I didn't mean to imply that you yourself define, or should define who you are by your genetalia. I just mean in a certain sense, on the most basic level, people most often classify others in a certain way automatically by what their gender is, and therefore make presumptions about their genetalia. Whether this is wrong or right isn't my point. You yourself admitted that this delemna (of gender and genetalia) is a challenge to many men so you decided it was in the best interests of fairness to start letting them know very early on. My point was this sort of thing to me is not directly akin to suggesting that this guy should come out from the jump to tell you he likes to wear panties...That was my point.