How many guys here would actually DATE a TS?

[SemperFiGuy]

That would be every dream come true I could ever imagine Ruby. I see the dating / relationship thing no different just because I like special girls.

It puts me into a weird corner. I'm not flambouyant or out there, no one would ever suspect. I'm a guy, a man among men type.

I do like to bottom though, which puts me "out" with a lot of TS girls. I don't get off on the feeling, it's the connection of giving me to her.

A "wife" would be AWSOME, a commited relationship. Feeling her slide into me skin on skin!!!!!! Shooting her love into me!!!!! Not practical with 99% of the girls on here though, so I suffer. I love normal boy / girl sex where I'm doing the pumping too of course. Very much so.

[Jim Brown]

That would be every dream come true I could ever imagine Ruby. I see the dating / relationship thing no different just because I like special girls.

It puts me into a weird corner. I'm not flambouyant or out there, no one would ever suspect. I'm a guy, a man among men type.

I do like to bottom though, which puts me "out" with a lot of TS girls. I don't get off on the feeling, it's the connection of giving me to her.

A "wife" would be AWSOME, a commited relationship. Feeling her slide into me skin on skin!!!!!! Shooting her love into me!!!!! Not practical with 99% of the girls on here though, so I suffer. I love normal boy / girl sex where I'm doing the pumping too of course. Very much so.

Jump right out and shout MARINE CORPS. AAAGGGHHHHH! oh sorry i wish i was a Marine.

[SemperFiGuy]

I'm retired/ on terminal leave. So I'm untouchable as far as any practical use of the UCMJ goes. So I guess I can take a train of hot TS girls right on the beach if I wanted. LOL...

[dderek123]

And by the way, there is no such thing as a woman who has any use for a homosexual man, outside of money, or maybe "companionship,"

fag hags

[NYBURBS]

I'm retired/ on terminal leave. So I'm untouchable as far as any practical use of the UCMJ goes. So I guess I can take a train of hot TS girls right on the beach if I wanted. LOL...

Semper Fi dude U Signed the Motherfucking Contract (but it's almost done now lol). Good luck.

[GinX]

A sexual act CANNOT be labeled as heterosexual or homosexual. Fellatio is neither. Anal penetration is neither. Vaginal penetration is neither. What matters is the people involved. A man need not be a homosexual to enjoy anal penetration. The sheer, mechanical, physical act of it can be pleasurable because we men have something called a prostate. What DOES matter is how he seeks that penetration. If he ONLY wants other men to do it, I'd call him a homosexual. If he prefers men and women, I'd call him bisexual. If he has no attraction to other men, but is comfortable with a transsexual or GG anally penetrating men, I'd call him a straight man who finds that particular sex act pleasurable.

How many faeries can dance on the head of your pinis?

These pointless orientology debates do nothing to resolve an important issue... a guy's manliness.

If someone looked at your old avatar, they would see someone who looked like a leering eyed, prissy undertaker in a plus-sized black silk suit. The image was so absurd that I doubt it was really a photo of you. But what if the person in that avatar started to fastidiously describe the pleasure he feels from passively taking a dildo into his squishy bottom, so as to "mechanically" massage his prostate... would it matter if he then denied his gayness, on the basis of only wanting women to ream him with a dildo? Who would not chuckle?

Your explanation is silly because it ignores the spectrum of gender and classifies orientation on expressed desire rather than behavior, allowing you to define as straight an effeminate man purporting to want anal sex from a woman.

In order to know if a person is gay or straight, sometimes you do not even need to say whether you prefer men or women to top your bottom.

This is just an informational post-- the aforementioned homosexual undertaker.....

You said you were gonna killfile me. It's not nice to lie.

By the way, why are you keeping a picture of me? I'm not interested in any man...not even you, Mac.

[phobun]

A sexual act CANNOT be labeled as heterosexual or homosexual. Fellatio is neither. Anal penetration is neither. Vaginal penetration is neither. What matters is the people involved. A man need not be a homosexual to enjoy anal penetration. The sheer, mechanical, physical act of it can be pleasurable because we men have something called a prostate. What DOES matter is how he seeks that penetration. If he ONLY wants other men to do it, I'd call him a homosexual. If he prefers men and women, I'd call him bisexual. If he has no attraction to other men, but is comfortable with a transsexual or GG anally penetrating men, I'd call him a straight man who finds that particular sex act pleasurable.

How many faeries can dance on the head of your pinis?

These pointless orientology debates do nothing to resolve an important issue... a guy's manliness.

If someone looked at your old avatar, they would see someone who looked like a leering eyed, prissy undertaker in a plus-sized black silk suit. The image was so absurd that I doubt it was really a photo of you. But what if the person in that avatar started to fastidiously describe the pleasure he feels from passively taking a dildo into his squishy bottom, so as to "mechanically" massage his prostate... would it matter if he then denied his gayness, on the basis of only wanting women to ream him with a dildo? Who would not chuckle?

Your explanation is silly because it ignores the spectrum of gender and classifies orientation on expressed desire rather than behavior, allowing you to define as straight an effeminate man purporting to want anal sex from a woman.

In order to know if a person is gay or straight, sometimes you do not even need to say whether you prefer men or women to top your bottom.

This is just an informational post-- the aforementioned homosexual undertaker.....

You said you were gonna killfile me. It's not nice to lie.

By the way, why are you keeping a picture of me? I'm not interested in any man...not even you, Mac.

He might only see your response if it happens to get incorporated into someone else's response. As far as not being interested in any man, that seems to conflict with what you've indicated previously, such as... "if you prefer both.... ...then it doubles your chances for a date on Friday night ".

And how do you classify yourself given your ad looking for CD/TV girls to top you...? They are not women, nor transsexuals, but men in skirts, right? So it is not exactly true to say you're not interested in any man.

I am not faulting you for being gay, just highlighting your ostensibly cognitive dissonant positions.

[MacShreach]

He might only see your response if it happens to get incorporated into someone else's response..

This is exactly correct, as you can see. All that's left of Morticia's post is the little space between 2 pink lines above your post. But Morticia just can't help reading my posts..... I know this when I see that little blank space It kills me.

[GinX]

A sexual act CANNOT be labeled as heterosexual or homosexual. Fellatio is neither. Anal penetration is neither. Vaginal penetration is neither. What matters is the people involved. A man need not be a homosexual to enjoy anal penetration. The sheer, mechanical, physical act of it can be pleasurable because we men have something called a prostate. What DOES matter is how he seeks that penetration. If he ONLY wants other men to do it, I'd call him a homosexual. If he prefers men and women, I'd call him bisexual. If he has no attraction to other men, but is comfortable with a transsexual or GG anally penetrating men, I'd call him a straight man who finds that particular sex act pleasurable.

How many faeries can dance on the head of your pinis?

These pointless orientology debates do nothing to resolve an important issue... a guy's manliness.

If someone looked at your old avatar, they would see someone who looked like a leering eyed, prissy undertaker in a plus-sized black silk suit. The image was so absurd that I doubt it was really a photo of you. But what if the person in that avatar started to fastidiously describe the pleasure he feels from passively taking a dildo into his squishy bottom, so as to "mechanically" massage his prostate... would it matter if he then denied his gayness, on the basis of only wanting women to ream him with a dildo? Who would not chuckle?

Your explanation is silly because it ignores the spectrum of gender and classifies orientation on expressed desire rather than behavior, allowing you to define as straight an effeminate man purporting to want anal sex from a woman.

In order to know if a person is gay or straight, sometimes you do not even need to say whether you prefer men or women to top your bottom.

This is just an informational post-- the aforementioned homosexual undertaker.....

You said you were gonna killfile me. It's not nice to lie.

By the way, why are you keeping a picture of me? I'm not interested in any man...not even you, Mac.

He might only see your response if it happens to get incorporated into someone else's response. As far as not being interested in any man, that seems to conflict with what you've indicated previously, such as... "if you prefer both.... ...then it doubles your chances for a date on Friday night ".

And how do you classify yourself given your ad looking for CD/TV girls to top you...? They are not women, nor transsexuals, but men in skirts, right? So it is not exactly true to say you're not interested in any man.

I am not faulting you for being gay, just highlighting your ostensibly cognitive dissonant positions.

If a CD/TV is working towards transitioning, I'm pretty sure she'd be offended if you called her a "guy in a skirt". However, if that's how you want to define them, I leave you to it.

I'm not faulting you, either, I'm simply disregarding your illogical position that your opinion and perception are more accurate or correct than someone else's, said opinion and perception being defined by your own ostensibly narrow views.

It is what it is. I think we've both said pretty much all that we can say on the subject...at least I have. You're not going to change your mind and I'm not going to change mine. I admit that I was continuing because I was incensed that you-and Mac-decided to make it personal. Between the two of you I've been insulted, slandered, and quoted out of context..and of course, that pissed me off. However, there's little point in continuing the discourse.

Post what you like, say what you like, claim what you like, believe whatever you need to believe. Me...I'm just gonna let this go and move on. Maybe you will too.

[Alchemist]

Never have. But if the opportunity ever came up, I could see myself probably doing so. Assuming the two of us clicked of course.