I'm calling it night! I'm going jack off to Jenna Rachels in a hardcore scene! Good night! :)
Printable View
I'm calling it night! I'm going jack off to Jenna Rachels in a hardcore scene! Good night! :)
Epic thread. What was it originally about?
Here is a timeline, I'm sick and cant sleep so I have the time. I tried my best to piece this together:Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Escalade
It was about XCritic not recognizing the TS genre by stating the work wasnt good enough.
Then, XCritic used male terminology to describe TS performers and got snippy when grilled about that.
Also, XCritic said that Seanchai should spend more time advertising TS porn
XCritic replied and apparently will be starting a TS designation for performers.
From there, Franklin and Seanchai had a back-and-forth about the quality of TS porn produced by Grooby.
Then, an argument ensued when Franklin claimed men wanted to see hardcore scenes instead of solo, despite others who work in the industry stating that solo stuff sells more.
Frankilin also felt that the models on SMY were not of a certain "quality."
I chimed in about SMY catering to a wide variety of fans then was questioned about the quality by Franklin.
I learned from one poster that you are indeed racist if you do not wish to subscribe to blacktgirls.com
Then, a debate ensued about CD/TV/TS in porn that strayed completely off-topic the entire time. Arguments broke out between several posters.
Franklin then informed us all that Kayla Coxx appearing in TS porn is false advertisement, as is the appearance of any other CD/TV appearing in TS porn.
The question of what qualifies you to be on a TS porn site was asked a bunch of times, even after the question was answered
It ended with Franklin informing us that he was leaving to yank it to Jenna Rachels.
Thank you kindly for the summary! I'm about to celebrate the Lakers reaching .500 again...
The Celtics are at that same percentage. Both teams need to pick it up but I still have confidence come playoff time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Escalade
So, I already stated that I knew this "spelling out" was a foregone conclusion but since I just got laid, I am in a good mood. Here you go...Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKLIN
Earlier in THIS thread you said this:
"The site does not say that TV men will be featured. Shemales are TS women. TVs are not Transsexuals. A TV should not be featured on any TS site."
Let us break this statement down with all the implications intact. Let me first of all state that I am assuming you are smart enough to write what you mean, and not have to backtrack it later as "Oh, I didn't mean that."
"The site does not say that TV men will be featured."
First, I think we may agree that those who are appearing on a site like SMY, would not want to be called "TV men", which in effect IS calling anyone who you don't consider to be TS, a guy in wigs and dresses. Also, by stating it thus in that sentence, you are making the implication that the site features, what you designate as "TV men", a category of person that you've made implicitly clear, you find UNATTRACTIVE. So, connecting that thread of LOGIC, you are stating that the site features people that you deem unattractive and that those people are these "TV men" that you speak of...
"Shemales are TS women."
This statement should be inherently offensive to just about anybody who considers themselves to be TS, but I'll just give it to you for the sake of this conversation. Fine. Given.
"TVs are not Transsexuals."
So, here is where you make the distinction that those who you deem as "TV men" are not truly Transsexuals. This simple statement puts YOU as "the sole decider" of who is truly TS and who is not.
"A TV should not be featured on any TS site."
So, in conclusion, you DID in fact say (as I correctly stated):
1. People I find unattractive on TS sites I label as TV men.
2. Those people are not TS.
3. Those people do not belong on TS sites.
Let's just face the facts here. You cannot accurately define (STILL HAVEN'T DONE SO) what YOUR definition of "TS" is.
So, I will give you one last chance. This is all you have to write... with no excuses, no dodges, no "Oh, I already said that somewhere"., etc. Let's put away silly games and just get down to brass tacks about just how superficial and self-serving a person you really are:
"MY DEFINITION OF A TRANSVESTITE IS: ..."
"MY DEFINITION OF A TRANSSEXUAL IS: ..."
tell us more about you getting laid
No. You don't engage because you cannot answer the questions that I pose to you directly. You ran out on the first conversation I had with you and you're running out again on this one. Both times you threw out a nonsensical generalization ("...because you make shit up as you go along..." in order to dodge and deflect the actual question.Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
As I did for Franklin, I will spell YOUR OWN WORDS out for you so you can stop wasting my time and start arguing with yourself.
This was your first response in this thread... basically "and yeah..." agreeing with the statements already made by Franklin.
"And yeah I don't like TVs being featured and them being sold to us as 'early transition' TGs. I KNOW some of those are just gay dudes working that hustle with a wig and lipstick."
Then later on:
"You all aren't getting that we're having a convo about SELLING and COMMODIFYING the concept of transgendered sexuality as a product. We're not defining what it meaning in a very personal sense to be transgendered. If you're asking me to purchase your vid because you're TG, you have to bring more to the table than just being a 'tgirl', however you want to define it."
The first statement logically contradicts the second.
In the first you ARE defining by implication that TV's are featured and sold as "early transition" TG's... something you find a turn off because of the whole "gay dudes working that hustle with a wig and lipstick" thing. That is, the two are interchangeable.
In the second, you make an incredible statement that "We're not defining what [sic] it meaning in a very personal sense to be transgendered." Well, that's very noble of you... or would be if you didn't already show that you do just that... based on looks alone.
Not making this up as I go along... THESE ARE YOUR WORDS.
Kindly quote to me where this was answered...? You can HARDLY call Franklin's circular reasoning of:Quote:
Originally Posted by sherm13
If you're TS, then you qualify to be on a TS site
an answer.
I answered the question but Franklin's answer does count, whether you agree or not. He did answer the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy
Here is my answer:
"The only qualification is for someone to appear on a TS site, whether CD/TS, is to appear feminine and interested in the scene. Look at Kayla Coxx for example. As Kayla, she delivers great scenes but that person is also a gay porn actor. Still, Kayla Coxx scenes are more feminine and passionate than a majority of other TS pornstars. That is my two cents, anyway."
For those of you who wonder why I so stress the importance of what a person defines as "TS" personally...
It is at the core of most arguments, and yet there are VERY few people who will actually put down in writing what they truly think. I applaud Amberskyi for doing it when I challenged her to do it last time, and I think it gives her credibility when she is making arguments in the future as there is a record about what place she is coming from.
You simply cannot speak knowingly of something you know nothing about or have not defined for YOURSELF, PERSONALLY.
I think a lot of people just throw this TS term around but few actually have thought through what they, in fact, actually believe. Fewer still are willing to actually admit that, "Yes, I judge Transsexuality based on looks alone," especially here, where the [imagined] backlash would be strong.
Quite honestly, I don't have a problem if that is the way you think. People judge other people on far worse criteria every day.
The problem I have is when you just won't admit it and then act like you're God's gift to the industry or can speak from a place of knowledge about the subject when in reality, all it takes to be TS in your mind is boobs and a pretty face.
OK... off to bed... I just got worn out... and not from the discussion.
Yours is an answer (pretty broad one at that!)... but I wasn't directing the question to you. Franklin's is FAR from an answer. It is a circular dodge.Quote:
Originally Posted by sherm13
Please quote where you think Franklin's answer is...? Thanks.
Not much to tell really. I went to a place called "Ember's" here in PDX because my photo shoot got interrupted with this stuff but I was all dressed up pretty like.Quote:
Originally Posted by ed_jaxon
Continuing the conversation inside, I was typing away at my phone screen and this guy next to me kept staring at me and doing that "oops I touched your leg" thing that guys do.
Anyway, chatted with him for a while, had a drink, went back to his place, and what can I say... I'm now a one night stand slut :) Thank you very much. Good night.
Franklin to be fair, many models only shoot for companies who will overly photoshop and make them look their best. As well as use video lighting etc to make them look their best.
Whereas, Grooby does light editing and goes for more the natural look and a more amateur look. Which many consumers prefer that over the highly edited photos, and others prefer the Playboyesque style.
So it's easier for a model to always look on point and great if she is modeling for a company that isn't going for a natural look.
But I will say many girls I have met look better in person than their pictorials/videos and others look better in the photos/video. Which as the consumer doesn't really matter as long as you are jerking off to something.
I'm just saying everyone knows Grooby shoots more natural and Shemaleclub shoots more Playboyesque and puts filters on everything.
And keep in mind straight companies have award winning photographers and directors, and they definitely make most of those females look good with photoshop and good lighting. I've seen them in person and it's definitely different for many of them.
I am aware you like blondes with big tits, but not every transsexual aspires to be a Barbie or have big tits. Just like females we all have our own version of what is pretty, and you may not like TVS or Transsexuals that look muscular/rough...but there are men that do. So on those updates Grooby, Shemaleclub, TSSEDUCTION, etc are pleasing those men.
But many top girls wont shoot for certain sites if they aren't edited and shown in the best light. So it's not only about "pay" it's about being worried a bad picture will be out there.
You must stay with sites, for the good updates. I know as a consumer it must be annoying for you when one weeks update isn't your type, but being on a multi-girl site you must know they are trying to reach out to everyone's eye of beauty! Some men don't like the stereotypical type of beauty. Which is what I call the American/Blonde/Big Tits look, it is a standard look of beauty. Some like nerdy girls, some like hippy girls, some like muscular girls, and so on. So you must understand Steven and other sites are trying to make all their customers happy. If you like a certain girls look, why don't you just join her solo site? Sarina, Kimber, Eva, and others you mentioned have solo sites. I have one coming out in Feb. So there are plenty of girls who would welcome you with open arms.
Here is his answer. Sure, its vague but is an answer: "If a site's name is Shemale, Tranny, TS, Trassexual, or any other term people rightfully or wrongfully use to advertise TS should only feature TS women. If a site includes TV men then the site needs a different name. M2F transsexuals are women. TVs are not women.Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy
Being a TS is required to be on a TS site with the sole exception of the person's hardcore partner. However, the scene should contain at least one TS."
My intrepretation of that is those who are in transition to being a woman as opposed to crossdressers off of Craiglist. That is all I can come away with from this answer, anyway.
The question was what qualifies to be on a TS porn site. It reads almost like a "What models would you showcase if you owned a TS pornsite" question. You seem upset that lots of posters prefer breast implants and collagen ejections over other types of models. People are attracted to what they are attracted to, so why fight it. I have no idea what you were looking for with this question but just because you disagree with the answers doesnt mean that you are right and others are wrong, because frankly, I sense that you proposed to question to start conflict in order to get your point across more so than to challenge anyone.
But many girls are ts..would you not of considered Domino a ts? She just recently had implants? Many girls start porn to afford transition and become total knockouts as their career goes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by sherm13
I do, that actually was not my answer, I quoted Franklin for her and intrepreted his answer. Domino is gorgeous and feminine.Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyShore
Well, I hope you don't consider yourself a Jedi because your senses are completely wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by sherm13
I didn't propose the question to start conflict. It is directly related to Franklin's statement that TV's don't belong on TS sites. 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?
You must take the CONTEXT of where the question was posted into consideration. Why would I possibly be asking "What models would you showcase..." given the context of what I was saying?
I have already stated, numerous times now, that I don't care AT ALL about a person's preferences about what they consider to be attractive or unattractive, that includes preferences about breast size, cock size, how low the balls hang, pretty fingernails, smooth skin, etc. etc. etc. I don't care one bit. Personally, I don't even care if you make that distinction based upon race. Yeah, I said it. Some people really like Asian girls, some do not. That is a PREFERENCE.
I care about when someone makes a blanket statement that "TV's do not belong on TS sites" and then does not have the moral courage to clearly state how they define and differentiate between the two terms. That is not a PREFERENCE... it is a judgement.
I've just brushed my teeth so that means bed. must. be. near.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy
I am late to the party but I want to comment. Franklin is right about the quality of TG porn. And sorry Wendy S, but he was right about his analysis about stats, it just that he explanations and reasoning was a little flawed and he confused causality. But he makes up for it with passion and his rhetoric and his stand to call it as he sees it. I took stats 101 (worse class, after physiology, I have ever taken and about 3 or 4 other statistical classes. I also collected data for the State of Ohio and developed it's first AIDS questionnaire...and did it using Lotus) and w/o getting bogged down by stat theories, philosophies and logic, Franklin was correct. Also someone mentioned getting a degree in marketing. That is like saying getting a degree in couch on the porch drunkenness or throwing empties in the yard theory. Fun, interesting, but does not contribute to life’s skills. Finally, the producers and their models, sets, poses, and content leave a lot to be desired.
I am the one with the Degree in Marketing and I assure you I have used my degree to take a product, ME, and turn it into a business via the skills I learned in College. Lifes skills? Get the fuck out of here. I have used those skills obtained to work for the IRS for four years working in HR and tax preparation and then moved onto the Adult side. And I commented on my Degree because Franklin said I was stupid, furthest thing from the truth. I am one of the most successful TS models business wise and I did that MARKETING me who who didnt fit the "look", "size" or "popularity" of many models that have come and gone.
And as a business owner, model, publicist for 5 models and one of the largest TS companies, my own toy line, website, affiliate, etc I can tell you that his statement about stats concerning solo scenes vs hardcore was WRONG according to my producing of not only website but DVD scenes via the sales, VOD, and signups I receive.
Wait you have a degree in marketing....................oh great. Market and Business degrees are known to do worst than every other major in business.Quote:
Originally Posted by WendyWilliams
WW, I was joking. I respect your skills and what you have accomplished. As you know, I do not like your film projects and subject matter, but its is your huste, its legal, and you are good at it. Just not thirsty about hardcore scenes. Franklin was wrong about causation but you cant ignore the cats passion. Plus what he was commenting about was a sort of standard deviation between solo and hardcore scenes and the producers wrongful use of sales as their data points w/o including other varibles size of population, costs, pricing, marketing, thirstiness, time of the year, economic conditions, thinking about who is sending emails to our CIA director, why Homeland went off course late in the year, who can point a glock at a child, and other random thoughts and even quality of content. Obbviously some of these cannot be quantified. And I was not mocking the school shooting tragedy. But like gun sales, porn sales spiked after the school shooting tragedy. So to use sales as the only statistical varible is a little dishonest and a lot of lack of marketing skills. You want a repeat customer not a one time buyer, and not understanding the Franklin's of the world, and mocking him, is very short-sighted.
And Franklin, play fair. You should never mock a person's journey. You are being ornery for just cause... respect a person accomplishment and appreciate a person's effort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKLIN
Oh fuck off, you just prove the point that you refuse to listen.
In YOUR opinion, Jenna Rachels is the only good model on this site this week. Get it, YOUR opinion!
"shemale" is a porn word. We've been over this countless times and your that soggy loaf you use for a brain, still can't absorb that "shemale" does not mean "transsexual". We almost never use lifestyle TV's but will use girls early in in transition or considering transition.
Do I think BTG has a good amount of quality models. Absolutely. That's why it's so successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKLIN
NO no no. Why can't you fucking read and absorb instead of basing your own theories of fact. "shemale" does not mean "TS".
Fucking read.
As it is I've just been through all the models for 2012 and did not see one who is clearly a transvestite.
I define and decide what goes on my site "shemale" yum, not your assinine ideas.
ENTIRELY INCORRECT. That's your wrong definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKLIN
Correct - at least you have that right.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKLIN
Name ONE that has appeared on other sites but not on Grooby sites as I can't think of any.Quote:
Originally Posted by sherm13
Geezus, even I'm not bitching about the word shemale anymore. I still don't like it, and I actually do agree with Franklin's interpretation of the word, but moving on from it isn't going to happen overnight regardless.
Personally, I think Seanchai has made a lot of improvements this year. I don't have a single new complaint.
I know, I know: hell is a bit chilly today. :lol:
You've never heard of Black T-Girls? Seriously?! :?Quote:
Originally Posted by sherm13
~BB~
Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKLIN
Zzzzzzzzzzzz.
They don't fit YOUR typical standards. Clearly someone not into blacks/asians/whites/latins would have a different opinion as would someone not into BBW on a BBW site. So why don't shut up on what you are not qualified to talk about.
No - that's exactly the concept. What Franklin can't get into his noggin is that different consumers find different models attractive. While he puts Hazel Tucker at the top of this list (or near) there are many who just don't find her that attractive and have others much higher, regardless of what Franklin judges them on,Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
One consumers best looking model might not be another. Why can't you get that into your thick head?Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKLIN
I'm a business/marketing major too, dick. Talented people work regardless of the success rate of their degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKLIN
~BB~
I wasn't mocking her. Most people with business and marketing degrees do worst in business than other people with other degrees. It has a lot to do with how those two majors are taught.Quote:
Originally Posted by buckjohnson
Until this year Star was one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
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?
Domino was a knockout way before she had implants...implants have nothing to do with being feminine...a lot of GG's have little if any breast size but are still very feminine.Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyShore
Domino was ALWAYS fem, and I can say the same about a lot of the girls who started without implants...they just have "it"...a femininity that's obvious and undeniable.
Moving on, let me say my thoughts on what "belongs" on a site is strictly up to the businessperson who's running the site. No business, even Apple, can create product that everyone is going to like (and buy). There's always going to be negative feedback...it's up to the people who run the business to figure out how to create enough product (and demand) so as to keep that business going.
That being said, look at the popularity of the Sissy/TV/CD thread on what is nominally considered to be a forum dedicated to TS...there obviously is a demand there and if I were running a TS site as a business, I would include product in this vein.
So that would be "I cannot" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKLIN
You're still a fucking idiot and not listening. How are we having a difficult time shooting the most popular tgirls? We've got the most popular tgirls and continue to work with them. There are always going to be a few girls whom either by preference, budget or contracts aren't going to work for every company - but we shoot the most popular tgirls. Why don't you stick to the point (the point being you're wrong) instead of constantly pulling inaccurate facts out of your ass?Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKLIN
Irrelevant what "social standards" are (whose society?) - Hazel does not fall under a classic beauty anyway (and I'm not going to start picking out why). What is relevant is what people want and what sells. End of story. You are incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKLIN
There is nothing wrong with that. Many of the girls simply choose not to that much work, some are just too difficult to work with and some have different agendas. You've mentioned 3 models out of 100's.Quote:
Originally Posted by FRANKLIN