X-critic also against Transsexuals

[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.

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.

[GroobyKrissy]

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.

[TSPornFan]

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 .......

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.

[MrsKellyPierce]

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.

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

[TSPornFan]

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.

[TSPornFan]

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?

[MrsKellyPierce]

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?

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

[GroobyKrissy]

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?

[loveboof]

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?

[ed_jaxon]

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