X-critic also against Transsexuals

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

We almost never use lifestyle TV's

---

That means that sometimes you do, so part of what Franklin is concerned about is a valid.

Whether the girls are hot enough is subjective because everyone has different tastes, but the video inspiration & quality is another valid point to make. Of course he is stating his opinion, but he should be free to make it without the whole groobiverse jumping on his back. (Or without his comments being deleted for no apparent reason other than thin skin and sensitive nerves)

@ 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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

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.

I'm just saying everyone knows Grooby shoots more natural and Shemaleclub shoots more Playboyesque and puts filters on everything.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loveboof

That means that sometimes you do, so part of what Franklin is concerned about is a valid.

Whether the girls are hot enough is subjective because everyone has different tastes, but the video inspiration & quality is another valid point to make. Of course he is stating his opinion, but he should be free to make it without the whole groobiverse jumping on his back. (Or without his comments being deleted for no apparent reason other than thin skin and sensitive nerves)

---

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.

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.

---

Fair enough. You are right that he doesn't speak for all porn consumers; he speaks for himself. But imo, one voice should still be good enough to be taken seriously.

I don't think the term 'shemale' includes transvestites - but seeing as it is mostly a porn term it probably doesn't matter that much...

I personally don't think that shemale should mean trans woman either.it implies that we're some weird hybrid freak thing and puts an emphasis on masculinity ie.the male part of the word.
It's as offensive as calling someone a he-she

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loveboof

Fair enough. You are right that he doesn't speak for all porn consumers; he speaks for himself. But imo, one voice should still be good enough to be taken seriously.

I don't think the term 'shemale' includes transvestites - but seeing as it is mostly a porn term it probably doesn't matter that much...

---

Each voice has an opinion. I know what Franklin likes and some of our sites cater more towards consumers who have similar if not exact tastes. As I've stated my issue isn't with his "one voice" but with him asserting totally incorrect facts about the industry and having a fantasy that he speaks for all.

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 .......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amberskyi

I personally don't think that shemale should mean trans woman either.it implies that we're some weird hybrid freak thing and puts an emphasis on masculinity ie.the male part of the word.
It's as offensive as calling someone a he-she

---

A topic for another day (and another thread) if you must. It's a porn "identifier" word. For better or worse, it's out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

A topic for another day (and another thread) if you must. It's a porn "identifier" word. For better or worse, it's out there.

---

As an adult entertainer I've made my peace with the word when used in a porn context.i just think it's funny logic to think that shemale means ts woman.

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.

1. Franklin - business/marketing majors are nowhere near the bottom of the list of unsuccessful majors - you are an idiot if you think that.

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.

3. I think its a valid point to say that Shemale Yum is the flagship site of Grooby - and the success of it can be attributed to the "realness" of the models. The lack of glossy photos and lighting is by design. Buddy Wood is an extremely talented photographer. Also, when your goal is to bring your members as many and as wide a variety of TS girls as Shemale Yum does, well you are going to see a whole range of girls. Remember, the level of TS girls varies from one city or country to another. I think Steven said it himself - that Shemale XXX is specifically designed to contain glossier and a higher level of still and video. Steven has hung his hat on improving his network by constantly changing and adding new types, genres, and scenarios. More so than anyone else in the world.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buckjohnson

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.

---

Sorry, total tangent (what else is new, right?) but this made me laugh...

"...Franklin was right about his analysis about stats..."

"...it is just that [sic] he explanations and reasoning was a little flawed and he confused causality..."

So, what you're really saying is that he was wrong. If your explanations and reasoning are flawed, then isn't your answer, in fact, incorrect?

This is the world of logic that we live in today. Everybody is a winner and nobody is ever wrong. If you don't score as many points as the other team, guess what... you've lost the game and you go away without a trophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amberskyi

I personally don't think that shemale should mean trans woman either.it implies that we're some weird hybrid freak thing and puts an emphasis on masculinity ie.the male part of the word.
It's as offensive as calling someone a he-she

---

A point that I made HERE:

"Shemales are TS women." - Franklin
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.

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 .......

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

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.

---

I understand girls don't want to dilute themselves. They want a strong brand name. How would it hurt a girl's brand by shooting even a few scenes a year for other companies?

Consumers will eventually want to see something different. Being different may require someone to work with someone else. Some consumers want to see these girls work with different producers. I'm not a fan of Joey. However, a lot of consumers want to see girls work with him.

This can create problems for the consumer depending on his or her taste. As this somewhat goes back to my thread about a lack of white American TS women on network sites with the exception of Grooby and Shemale Strokers. Right now people who want to see white American TS women can only get new content by joining solo sites. In the past few months nobody else is shooting White American women.

Kelly, I am a bit confused by this one payment. Is it one payment per scene, % of each members' subscription fee, % in DVD sales, etc. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRANKLIN

I understand girls don't want to dilute themselves. They want a strong brand name. How would it hurt a girl's brand by shooting even a few scenes a year for other companies?

Consumers will eventually want to see something different. Being different may require someone to work with someone else. Some consumers want to see these girls work with different producers. I'm not a fan of Joey. However, a lot of consumers want to see girls work with him.

This can create problems for the consumer depending on his or her taste. As this somewhat goes back to my thread about a lack of white American TS women on network sites with the exception of Grooby and Shemale Strokers. Right now people who want to see white American TS women can only get new content by joining solo sites. In the past few months nobody else is shooting White American women.

Kelly, I am a bit confused by this one payment. Is it one payment per scene, % of each members' subscription fee, % in DVD sales, etc. :confused:

---

No it's a flat fee between 800 to 2000 depending on the company and the scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

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.

---

What if I called you a hot white chick? Would you still beat me up? I love aggressive women. :Bowdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

No it's a flat fee between 800 to 2000 depending on the company and the scene.

---

Sorry for asking so many questions. How does the T-Girl Network work? If a member buys the $35 full network access then how would the money be divided? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FRANKLIN

Sorry for asking so many questions. How does the T-Girl Network work? If a member buys the $35 full network access then how would the money be divided? :confused:

---

I'll let Wendy or someone like that explain how it works.

I don't want to be caught in any drama or be accused of going after SMC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Genetic

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

---

No.

I have never stated that the two are interchangeable and the same thing. Nor have I ever implied that logically. In fact, I have already voiced an opinion that I would agree with Amberskyi's definition of a TV as someone who dresses up for sexual thrill only (but would add a couple of other reasons as well).

What I have stated emphatically, is that YOU, not knowing the individual PERSONALLY, cannot accurately make the determination of "TV" or "TS". If you do, you're doing it on the basis of looks alone. All I ask is that if you do that, then admit it.

A PERSONAL accounting of how one defines the two IS necessary for the purposes of an ACTUAL DISCUSSION (especially here) because if you leave the terms undefined, you are leaving them open to interpretation, which as you can see, is widely contested.

If I ventured into the Politics Arena here and made a bunch of inflammatory statements about the Democratic Party, but began with, "I'm a Democrat BUT... blah blah blah..." It would not be very long before someone asked the question, "So you call yourself a Democrat... what are you defining that as?"

It is the same here. You cannot make observations based upon personal judgements and then cry foul when someone asks for an accounting of how you arrived at those judgements.

Does that answer your question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy

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.

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.

---

Best post in this thread. Thanks Krissy

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.

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. :(

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

---