Printable View
Not me. She looked fine back in the 80s when she was the Bud girl in Canada (or something like that) prior to her first Playboy appearance. But all that silicone and makeup and fakery, not for me. Not that the tgirls we know and love don't go in for silicone and makeup, but the t's I'm attracted to don't come off as plastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by "ONEWORLD[b
pamelas days are over
I agree with Shade. When a man sucks a penis, no matter how you want to frame it, it is homosexual contact. Does that make you Gay? Well, no it does not. Does it make you bisexual? Yes, it does and there's nothing at all wrong with being bisexual. It's really cool that guys like Ecstatic can admit that they are bisexual and get on with life.
Second, another conundrum. A lot of us transwomen have come-out and up thru the gay community and see ourselves as part of the lbgt umbrella. So if you have sex with one of us and we claim to be gay in that sense then are we having gay sex, but you are having straight sex all in the same act? :)
Finally, it's cool that this thread doesn't have personal attacks and is just opinions. But I've noticed that when guys get pissed at girls on here the first thing they do is call them 'dude' or 'man,' etc. What gives there? If a transwoman is towing the 'party line' she's a woman. If she disagrees she's a man? Think about it....
It really ain't as simple as a dick is a dick.
It's all a state of mind. If you accept, treat, and view your T-woman fully as a woman that whatever you do with her ain't gay or even bi.
When I first got around T-girls, the most amazing thing to me was that I never once could see a large number of them as males. This was long before I was even attracted to any of them. I've heard it from many of the people that have known some of my T friends as friends, co-workers, and associates.
I have slipped up and gotten w/ girls that haven't been all female. It's not about anything in particular (how they look, how they speak, how they do anything). It's a feeling, a state of mind and a state of being. You know it when you experience it. But no matter how good they look, how many curves they have bought, or how femme they act some t-girls you meet with are nothing but with a pretty outershell. Then there are the GOOD ones the ones that are all women no matter whats in thier panties.
Just as it ain't what's in the panties that makes a woman a woman, it ain't the sex act that makes a person (gay, bi, or straight).
I'm sure many disagree but if you ain't walked in my shoes you can't know where I have been. For a TS to tell me about myself and to tell me who I am, is like some non transperson telling you that you are simply a confused or to tell you that you are crazy, hate yourself, and all of that bullshit that people say about TS woman. We all have heard the know it all gay boys that claim to know the TS girls better than they know themselves just because they have been around a few here and there.
Society has no concrete definition of the TS so how can you really put a label on those who are invloved with them?
This is life, you can't ever truly DEFINE another human.
It really ain't as simple as a dick is a dick.
It's all a state of mind. If you accept, treat, and view your T-woman fully as a woman that whatever you do with her ain't gay or even bi.
When I first got around T-girls, the most amazing thing to me was that I never once could see a large number of them as males. This was long before I was even attracted to any of them. I've heard it from many of the people that have known some of my T friends as friends, co-workers, and associates.
I have slipped up and gotten w/ girls that haven't been all female. It's not about anything in particular (how they look, how they speak, how they do anything). It's a feeling, a state of mind and a state of being. You know it when you experience it. But no matter how good they look, how many curves they have bought, or how femme they act some t-girls you meet with are nothing but with a pretty outershell. Then there are the GOOD ones the ones that are all women no matter whats in thier panties.
Just as it ain't what's in the panties that makes a woman a woman, it ain't the sex act that makes a person (gay, bi, or straight).
I'm sure many disagree but if you ain't walked in my shoes you can't know where I have been. For a TS to tell me about myself and to tell me who I am, is like some non transperson telling you that you are simply a confused or to tell you that you are crazy, hate yourself, and all of that bullshit that people say about TS woman. We all have heard the know it all gay boys that claim to know the TS girls better than they know themselves just because they have been around a few here and there.
Society has no concrete definition of the TS so how can you really put a label on those who are invloved with them?
This is life, you can't ever truly DEFINE another human.
Hey, thanks, eclipse! Happy New Year to you! Coming out as bisexual is really the most natural thing in the world to me; it's been a part of who I am for nearly as long as I can remember and something I've never hid from those for whom it's relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by eclipse2000b
Nice distinction between the sexual act itself being homosexual but not necessarily gay: this gets back to the difference between sexual orientation and gender identification. In the purest XY chromosomal sense of male/female body parts and sexuality, yes, by definition a man sucking a penis is involved in a homosexual [same sex] act. So what? In terms of gender, if the penis is attached to a transwoman who is fully gender identified as a woman, then it's not gay; if the penis is attached to a man who gender identifies as male--regardless of how gay he may be--it is gay. The only biological exception to this is sex with an intersexed person (someone with a different chromosomal makeup, such as XXY): the bipolar sexual dyad no longer applies in such a case (though gender identification does). The transwomen I have been with are not gay men (though as you say they may have begun their transition as gay men: in point of fact, a few of those I've known did, while others identified as girls from childhood and really never went through a gay phase). I say this with surety based on the number of gay men (of a wide range of types) that I have known over 30 years: regardless of their differences, they were all men.
Two points of view, one act: for one, it may be gay and for the other straight. Are you looking at it from a third point of view, as an outside observer? Two people make love. The guy thinks it's the hottest sex he's ever had, but the woman thinks, ho-hum, I'd rather be shopping, this guy is soooo boring. Can both be right? Each for him/herself, yes. An outside observer might notice the disconnection between the two partners, but still, it was hot for one and at best tepid for the other. Likewise, in his mind, the guy in your scenario thinks he's having straight sex (he's top, he doesn't suck her dick, he is enjoying her purely as a woman) but the transwoman (who wants her srs but hasn't transitioned fully yet) still thinks of the act as homosexual and will do so until she has srs. Both are correct from their own perspectives, and the outside observer will impose his/her own interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by eclipse2000b
Consider this variation on your scenario: it's completely dark, and the TS has managed to hide her penis from the guy so that he doesn't know she's not a natural woman. She offers her ass to him, and he takes it, but he never notices her male parts. Is it still homosexual sex? (I've never experienced this, but I've read many descriptions of just such a "trick" played on a guy by a TS who doesn't want him to know--many girls in fact have boasted of fooling guys this way.) Or consider that she has had her srs, and then has sex with a guy. Is it homosexual then? Well, most of us would say not, because she now has a vagina rather than a penis. But she still has the XY chromosome balance, still needs hormonal therapy, still is prone to male biological tendency (male pattern baldness, etc.--mitigated by the hormones, yes, but nonetheless still present). So you could argue that it's still homosexual.
My point? What difference does it make?
Good point, eclipse.Quote:
Originally Posted by eclipse2000b
Let's ban together guys (and girls!) and invent a new word that will once and for all put this "gray area" to rest. We can attempt to placate those fragile ego's, chest beaters and paranoids that insist they are macho, even with the proverbial "cock in mouth".
We're all sure we don't like: faggot, homo, gay and now even "bi" is shunned (oh my!).
How about: "transsexual receiver"? or "transsexual connector"?
But I think that the mere mention of the prefix "trans" will send many of our macho bretheren running for the closet.
How about: "bi-hetero" (whatever the fuck that means), i'm sure this will keep a lot happy. Or one of the old favorites....."specialsexual" or "consexual" (this one does not refer to the play on the word "consent." Nor does it have anything to do with the Spanish term "con" meaning "with". It has to do with combining the two words "con"....as in, to con or hustle and "sexual." In other words....Who the hell are you conning faggot?
C'mon everyone. Give it your best shot. One entry per person. Absolute Shade can judge. Why not. It's the new year.
my entry
heteroflexible
meow
Felicia
Felicia, I like it! I was going to suggest omnisexual, which might be more accurate, but heteroflexible has a great ring to it! I go with bisexual tp describe my own orientation because it's the most comprehensive term in general use, but since I don't limit people to the male/female dyad, "bi-" is less true than "omni-".
Quote:
Originally Posted by partlycloudy
http://www.hungangels.com/board/file...onnomakeup.jpg
I HATE TO BREAK THE BAD NEWS TO YA, BUT PAM WAS WEARING THE SAME MAKE-UP 10 YEARS AGO. AS I'VE SAID A THOUSAND TIMES, I NEVER BASE MY OPINION ON A WOMAN/TS BASED ON PICTURES. PAM ANDERSON AND ANY OTHER PLAYMATE REALLY, ARE AVERAGE TO ABOVE AVERAGE IN THE LOOKS DEPARTMENT...THAT'S WITHOUT THE MAKE-UP...IF YOU REALLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT GENETIC MARVELS OF NATURE, THEN LOOK AT FASHION MODELS. THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THE 5'10 TO 6 FEET FREAKS OF NATURE WITH PERFECT BONE STRUCTURE AND FACIAL SYMMETRY (GISELLE BUNDCHEN, CHRISTY TURLINGTON, NAOMI CAMPBELL)...I LIKE PAM BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, SHE'S NOT A DIVA...VERY DOWN-TO-EARTH AND SECOND; SHE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT MEN WANT AND GIVES IT TO THEM EVERY FUCKING TIME THEY SEE HER...
YOU SEE ONE ADVANTAGE THAT TRANSEXUALS HAVE OVER GENETIC GIRLS IS THE FACT THAT GENETIC WOMEN DON'T ALWAYS WANT TO CATER TO MAN'S FANTASY...SHE DOESN'T ALWAYS WANT TO BE A SEX OBJECT; WHEREAS TRANSEXUALS WANT TO THE OBJECT OF A MAN'S DESIRE ALL DAY, EVERYDAY...NOW YOU HAVE EXCEPTIONS: STRIPPERS, PLAYMATES AND OTHERS WHO MAKE A LIVING FROM THEIR LOOKS
BTW. SINCE WE ARE POSTING PICTURES OF PEOPLE WITHOUT MAKE-UP, LET'S POST SOME PICTURES OF THESE TRANSEXUAL GIRLS WITHOUT MAKE-UP THAT MEANS A WASHED FACE. TRUST ME THAT YOU WILL SEE FAR WORSE PICTURES THAN THE ONE ABOVE...