Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sherm13
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. :(
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sherm13
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FRANKLIN
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?
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
loveboof
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
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?
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FRANKLIN
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?
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
It's not gonzo.
How do you define gonzo?
Oh good god. You're starting to sound like me. Good luck with that.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GroobyKrissy
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.
Re: X-critic also against Transsexuals
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seanchai
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
Quote:
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.
