X-critic also against Transsexuals

[GroobyKrissy]

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.

[GroobyKrissy]

I answered the question but Franklin's answer does count, whether you agree or not. He did answer the question.

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."

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.

Please quote where you think Franklin's answer is...? Thanks.

[GroobyKrissy]

tell us more about you getting laid

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.

[MrsKellyPierce]

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.

[sherm13]

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.

Please quote where you think Franklin's answer is...? Thanks.

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.

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.

[MrsKellyPierce]

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.

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.

[sherm13]

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.

I do, that actually was not my answer, I quoted Franklin for her and intrepreted his answer. Domino is gorgeous and feminine.

[GroobyKrissy]

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.

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.

Well, I hope you don't consider yourself a Jedi because your senses are completely wrong.

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.

[sherm13]

Well, I hope you don't consider yourself a Jedi because your senses are completely wrong.

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.

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.

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.

[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.