Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sherm13
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FRANKLIN
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LibertyHarkness
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 .......
Agreed wish I would of saw this I am on my iPhone
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
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
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
@ 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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
christianxxx
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
christianxxx
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_1...siness-degree/
Quote:
Originally Posted by
christianxxx
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
christianxxx
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
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 -
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Genetic
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.
