coinflipper_21 (imported) wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:53 pm This is not just an issue of sexual attraction whether bisexual, homosexual or heterosexual. The interesting thing is how many men, and women are socially conditioned to, or have convinced themselves that they must, have "standards" of physical appearance for anyone they allow themselves to be attracted to. How many men will not get close to an even moderately overweight woman despite the sense that they are really attracted to her personality, intelligence and, yes, even overt sexuality. How many women will not allow themselves to get close to a man who is "hairy" or maybe a bit overweight because of what their girlfriends may think. They will forgo the experience of getting to know someone who may be a really great person because of the risk of being seen with someone who isn't hot, or sexy.

Sexy is a tease. Sexy is a promise that is almost never made good. Real relationships, whatever the sexual or gender orientation, come between people of complementary intelligence, shared feelings, passion for life, and in the case of a sexual relationship, true and genuine sexuality.

Fetishists are another issue. If a person seeks out the object of their fetish without regard for the other person's feelings it is almost always hurtful and destructive to the person who is the object. However, it's not always bad. I have seen relationships with complementary fetishes (Really!) that are as close and permanent as any you could imagine.

Too many of us are not just selfish, but shallow and stop at the cover without opening the book. --- Just an observation, not wisdom.

Very well said.

For me, if I'm attracted to someone's inner being, whatever their external appearance will automatically be sexy to me.

I know that yes, there are complementary fetishes. I can imagine a man with a castration fetish could very happily live with a woman who has a fetish for castrating her man. Sadly a lot of admirers, unfortunately, objectify without regard for the consequence their selfish actions cause. They're quite happy to lead someone down the path, and entering the vicious cycle of mistaking being lusted after for validation of oneself, simply because its convenient for them to get their rocks off for that one time.

Even if one has a fetish, one can let the love, respect and acceptance can come first, rather than place one's fetish as first priority. Perhaps there lies the difference between complementary and non-complementary fetishes... whether one treats it like the air one needs to breath to survive, or the cherry on the icing on the cake.

Lust peoples the world with children.

No it doesn't. Gay people, transpeople, gender neutral people, people who cannot have children, people who wear condoms, all experience lust.

Children born out of lust, what are they guaranteed? Maybe words like

"I never wanted you"

or

"If not for that one night of fun you wouldn't have ruined my youth".

How many unwanted pregnancies were a product of lust people-ing the world with children?

Lust is simply one's desire for one's self-gratification. That is its role in the modern world. Sure, it may be valid to a certain extent, but really, to claim it peoples the world.... I don't know if I should laugh or cry at the absurdity of the claim.

Does YOUR lust for transwomen help people the world with children?

Also... I'm sure there'll be lots of Eunuchs here who'll dispute your claim that lust is a necessary emotion. Too, lust is if anything, a simple, base emotion, not a complex one.

To be fair, the species would NOT end if love disappeared and lust remained, but it would be a much poorer one. Were the reverse to happen, that there was no stand-alone lust, I can't say that we'd stop reproducing. Wanting to procreate out of love can be such a strong emotion that procreation would likely still continue. Maybe thats the gist of what I am saying. Lust borne of love is a wonderful thing. They should NOT be independent of each other.

About five years ago I started a group on Myspace for Transgendered and crossdressers. The group now has over 7000 members now. A portion of those members are people who are "admirers". But not all "admirers" are alike.

The most prominent admirer is the middle aged man who's primary interest is sexual. Despite the stereotype in pornography and pop culture, most of these men are seeking to be penetrated by the transgendered person. They also like to perform oral sex on the transgendered person. It is speculated that these persons have unresolved bisexual or homosexual desires that can not be resolved with a masculine man. Many are actually repulsed by men, so having a woman that has manly equipment can resolve this problem.

Another type of admirer are those who admire us for having the courage to stand up to society and be who we are. They like our Karma and want to be friends with us. These sometimes blossom into romantic relationships.

There are also "Gentleman" who seek the comfort of a woman in social situations. These men like to date and many of them find that transgendered women, because of their need to express feminism, portray a more traditional female role. This allows these men to engage in "chivalry", which is greatly appreciated by the transgendered person. Many times these relationships do not involve sex, but are focused more on the emotional aspects of a relationship.

Another type of admirer are women who are specifically looking for a transgendered woman. They actually prefer to be with a feminine man, for lack of a better description. Most of these were women who found out that a boyfriend or husband was transgendered and enjoyed it. Now having moved on they still want to have the kind of relationship one can only have with a pre-op male to female transsexual. They are ok with being considered lesbians, even though they themselves don't consider themselves to be lesbians and would never pursue a relationship with a natal female.

Now I am sure there are many more kinds of admirers, but in my experience, these seem to be the most common.

Elizabeth

You're right that most sexual behavior isn't necessary for procreation, and that many people who don't reproduce feel lust. Still, the genetic/biological purpose of sexual desire is to encourage reproduction. Everything else that human beings make of it - emotional intimacy, social bond, romance, recreation, self-expression, etc. - is secondary and derivative. All this may be rewarding, but every species must propagate itself, and most (though not all) animals reproduce instinctively without the elaborate trappings human beings add. People might choose to reproduce because they understood the need, but dogs and cats wouldn't reproduce themselves without lust. Human beings are animals too, and our intellectual advances have not freed us from the instincts which governed our species' forebears. Biology is still destiny, no matter how we may chafe at that. I've never had children. That I've frustrated nature's purpose doesn't negate the existence of that purpose.

You're also right that lust sometimes leads to unwanted children. My response is that it leads to wanted children as well, who make up the core of the human population. Also, though it may sound harsh to say, the reproductive instinct is indifferent to our other feelings and cares. There is a blind drive to procreate, which sweeps away much else that we consider important.

If lust is self-gratification, then it allies itself to a purpose which far transcends the self. The human condition is indeed absurd, and you may laugh or cry at it as you please, but denial will not help you.

We may disagree about this, but we should be able to keep our disagreement civil. I wrote that I "

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:37 pm sometimes find myself attracted to Tgirls.

" This does not imply that Tgirls are anything other than an infrequent interest. I've always felt free to follow my feelings in matters of both love and lust. You may be surprised to hear that I'm an incurable romantic who's given much of his life to chaste loves, not the roue lusting after Tgirls you seem to imagine. The two great loves of my life were both virile men, neither of whom ever had sex with me. If you despise men who chase Tgirls, then you have nothing against me.

All I've said is that I consider love and lust to be separate, and that I'm impatient with the rhetoric which extols love at the expense of lust, as if the two emotions were somehow in competition with one another. Freud spoke of "sublimation" - "to divert the energy of a sexual or other biological impulse from its immediate goal to one of a more acceptable social, moral, or aesthetic nature." I prefer to speak about human life without the polite evasions of sublimation. If you insist that lust is a "simple, base emotion," my response is to point to the vast cultural edifice that has been built upon it.

In saying that love and lust should not be independent, the word "should" brings corruption. Wishes in defiance of biology and of human reality only cause pain. We lie to ourselves at our peril.

I cherish love. I can not help but respect the power of lust.

You seem to be a very nice person. I hope that we can disagree without your making hurtful assumptions about who I am.

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:25 am You're right that most sexual behavior isn't necessary for procreation, and that many people who don't reproduce feel lust. Still, the genetic/biological purpose of sexual desire is to encourage reproduction. Everything else that human beings make of it - emotional intimacy, social bond, romance, recreation, self-expression, etc. - is secondary and derivative. All this may be rewarding, but every species must propagate itself, and most (though not all) animals reproduce instinctively without the elaborate trappings human beings add. People might choose to reproduce because they understood the need, but dogs and cats wouldn't reproduce themselves without lust. Human beings are animals too, and our intellectual advances have not freed us from the instincts which governed our species' forebears. Biology is still destiny, no matter how we may chafe at that. I've never had children. That I've frustrated nature's purpose doesn't negate the existence of that purpose.

Your point being?

You're also right that lust sometimes leads to unwanted children. My response is that it leads to wanted children as well, who make up the core of the human population. Also, though it may sound harsh to say, the reproductive instinct is indifferent to our other feelings and cares. There is a blind drive to procreate, which sweeps away much else that we consider important.

Between love and lust, which one leads to more wanted children

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:25 am , who make up the core of the human population?

Our species is at a point where we need to pay more heed to our mind and less to lust. We have not evolved this far to only consider primal instincts at the expense of other things as valuable, if not more so, than lust.

I am not sure I appreciate that when you make a statement you make it seem like you are speaking for the whole human race, of whom I am one of. If you insist that

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:25 am the reproductive instinct is indifferent to our other feelings,

how come I, and truth be told, a large part of the human race seems to be able to hold it in check and not constantly engage in sexual activity? Why are most of us able to know when sexual behaviour is appropriate, why are most of us, even at the horniest of times, able to refrain from wanking off in a lift full of strangers? Because lust is NOT indifferent to our other wants and carse. Because, what you consider to be powerful, lust, is still subservient to an even more powerful emotion: sensibility. You constantly attempt to seperate lust, but you do not understand it cannot be seperated.

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:25 am If lust is self-gratification, then it allies itself to a purpose which far transcends the self. The human condition is indeed absurd, and you may laugh or cry at it as you please, but denial will not help you.

But I don't deny anything. It is not like I do not engage in self-pleasure. As with everything in life, I say that its fine to do it as long as you do not affect others negatively or hurt others. You use a definition of lust that may have once been relevant WHEN the human race as a species did not have its survival assured numbers-wise, but things have changed, and you cannot hold onto that definition anymore. Lust is no longer about reproduction, it is about pleasure. The problem with pleasure is that its an inherently selfish thing. We, as intelligent beings, should seek to ensure that we should not end up hurting others in our pursuit of selfish pleasures. Or do you disagree with that sentiment?

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:25 am We may disagree about this, but we should be able to keep our disagreement civil. I wrote that I "

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:25 am 20]
sometimes find myself attracted to Tgirls.

" This does not imply that Tgirls are anything other than an infrequent interest. I've always felt free to follow my feelings in matters of both love and lust. You may be surprised to hear that I'm an incurable romantic who's given much of his life to chaste loves, not the roue lusting after Tgirls you seem to imagine. The two great loves of my life were both virile men, neither of whom ever had sex with me. If you despise
[/quote]
men who chase Tgirls, then you have nothing against me.

What I am against are the admirers who frequent bars and pubs in their crusade to get their quick fix. Just as I have always said I despise the paedophiles who hurt others for their own selfish gratification, I admire those who can be good people despite what has to be said, is a trait unfortunately bestowed upon them by nature. If anything, given the degree of self-control a paedophile must need to never lay hands on a child or contribute to the child abuse/pornography industry, that is certainly deserving of more respect than can ever be given. Whatever they get up to inside their own heads, that tiny bit of privacy is theirs to own.

If you can proudly claim that despite your fetish for T-girls, you've never led any of them into the vicious circle of mistaking being lusted after as validation of their inner-self, then good for you, you're worthy of the respect I've mentioned above. You could even be a valuable tool for assisting with helping other fetishists to see that their inconsiderate actions are selfish and harmful to the transcommunity when it comes to the struggle to get the rest of mainstream society to see us for who we are: people, rather than see us all as a product of some dirty misguided lust because of a very small but very visible misled transgirls trapped in a vicious lust-validation circle.

You also need to remember that validation thru lust is like taking a drug. Soon they will need to be lusted more and more after for the same amount of validation. It is simply a destructive route for any tgirl to go down, especially given that we all age, and that generally attractiveness affecting lust decreases with age. If you also care

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:25 am for us Tgirls then I hope you can see the sense in this.

All I've said is that I consider love and lust to be separate, and that I'm impatient with the rhetoric which extols love at the expense of lust, as if the two emotions were somehow in competition with one another. Freud spoke of "sublimation" - "to divert the energy of a sexual or other biological impulse from its immediate goal to one of a more acceptable social, moral, or aesthetic nature." I prefer to speak about human life without the polite evasions of sublimation. If you insist that lust is a "simple, base emotion," my response is to point to

the vast cultural edifice that has been built upon it.

You can't. That is just over simplifying things. Love and lust, like it or not, go best hand-in-hand. Lust can still exist independently, yes, but independent lust often are where problems stem from. You do not get my point, I am not extolling love at the expense of lust. I am PUTTING DOWN lust that is harmful.

As for lov

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:25 am e and lust, like I said, they're n

ot, and should not, be in competition with one another. They are complimentary, co-dependent.

To your response that there is a vast cultural edifice built upon lust, I reply that just because a complex culture has been built out of something does not mean that something itself is not a simple base emotion. Look at the need to eat. That is another simple base emotion, one borne out of survival instincts. Yet, dare you say that our culinary culture that has been built upon it is anything but complex and vast? The vastness, the complexity, the variety of our cultural edifice that rose from lust is not because lust itself is complex. Rather, it is because WE are complex beings, capable of taking the most simple of emotions,

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:25 am and weaving the most complicated pictures as we perceive it.

In saying that love and lust should not be independent, the word "should" brings corruption. Wishes in defiance of biology and of human rea

lity only cause pain. We lie to ourselves at our peril.

Ok. I will amend the statement. Love and lust ARE best co-dependent. Unfortunately on one hand you talk about human biology and on the other, you quote freud. Lust is as much a psychological response as it is a biological one. Like I previously pointed out, wanting to pork someone fit you see does not arise out of a biological need to procreate today as much as recent as 100 years ago. We evolve, we evolve along the lines of how the entire species is doing, our minds can evolve, and to be fair, so can our biology, in a very subtle sense. What sounds hollow is when you talk about not defying our biology and human reality when the truth is, biology is no longer an adequate justification for lust, and human reality is that lust is now a product of a desire to satisfy oneself, not a desire to survive.

As for causing pain, I think you might want to rethink that statement when you meet a tgirl who has been drawn down the lust-validation vicious cycle. It is the thoughtless admirers, who, thru their selfishness and ignorance who cause more pain in the long run than any "prude" you might care to label, who understands what it genuinely means to identify as women, who does not buy into all that superficial "non-defiance of our biology" nonsense. Arguing with biology to justify lust is very dangerous and very ignorant, because it is precisely "biology" that has been used to argue against homosexuality and transsexualism as being unnatural.

Technically, denying oneself recognition of the truth is more the act considered lying, than understanding what drives lust and know

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:25 am ing where to draw the line when embracing one's own lust.

I cher

ish love. I can not help but respect the power of lust.

I don't respect the power of lust in the same way you do. I respect it... as I would treat a loaded gun. Recognise its poten

bobover3 (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:25 am tial to do harm, and be very careful when indulging in it.

You seem to be a very nice person. I hope that we can disagree

without your making hurtful assumptions about who I am.

I don't think I've made any hurtful assumptions about you, not publicly anyway, but I certainly am entitled to my own private thoughts. Thus far what I have posted in reply to you, is in response and rebuttal to the points, claims and statements you make, not personal attacks on you. Hopefully you can see that.

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:13 am About five years ago I started a group on Myspace for Transgendered and crossdressers. The group now has over 7000 members now. A portion of those members are people who are "admirers". But not all "admirers" are alike.

The most prominent admirer is the middle aged man who's primary interest is sexual. Despite the stereotype in pornography and pop culture, most of these men are seeking to be penetrated by the transgendered person. They also like to perform oral sex on the transgendered person. It is speculated that these persons have unresolved bisexual or homosexual desires that can not be resolved with a masculine man. Many are actually repulsed by men, so having a woman that has manly equipment can resolve this problem.

If they're repulsed by men and yet want to engage in sexual acts with male genitalia, it is up to them to sort their mind out.

We are people, not things to be used for sexual experimentation. That is objectification, and I cannot agree with this type of "admiration".

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:13 am About five years ago I started a group on Myspace for Transgendered and crossdressers. The group now has over 7000 members now. A portion of those members are people who are "admirers". But not all "admirers" are alike.

Another type of admirer are those who admire us for having the courage to stand up to society and be who we are. They like our Karma and want to be friends with us. These sometimes blossom into romantic relationships.

These are the genuine admirers, people who respect us as fellow humans for the courage, sense of justice and other positive attributes we exhibit. They are the ones who humanise us, who rightly see beyond the superficial, who share our sense of social justice. Goodness knows we need to be humanised. I want to be seen as a HUMAN BEING, not a trans, a shemale, a ladyboy, a girl with a dick yada yada etc. I am much more than just the product of a girl in a boy's body, and it is this type of admirers who make it a point to accept us as fellow humans and not get stuck on the superficial "unique-ness" who are deserving of our mutual respect and friendship.

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:13 am About five years ago I started a group on Myspace for Transgendered and crossdressers. The group now has over 7000 members now. A portion of those members are people who are "admirers". But not all "admirers" are alike.

There are also "Gentleman" who seek the comfort of a woman in social situations. These men like to date and many of them find that transgendered women, because of their need to express feminism, portray a more traditional female role. This allows these men to engage in "chivalry", which is greatly appreciated by the transgendered person. Many times these relationships do not involve sex, but are focused more on the emotional aspects of a relationship.

No. Sadly, this is, like it or not, a form of sexism and objectification, however nicely it has been packaged.

One of the most annoying things anyone can say to me is "but you tgirls are so much nicer and more feminine than normal girls". That statement in itself suggests that I am not seen as a girl, than I am not a normal human being. Very insulting. I will not speak for other Tgirls, but I do not seek to exist as a seperate subset outside of the main womanhood. We are ALL women, whatever physical differences we have. To suggest we're "better" than women also suggests that we're not, which is simply rude and ignorant.

Also, if these men need a woman in a more traditional "female" role, then like it or not, it IS sexism. To use, nay, exploit transwomen as a placeholder AFTER failing to find cisgendered subservient feminine women to act out their sexist(even if in a good way) fantasies? I do not approve.

As for why I call it exploitation, well a lot of transwomen are under pressure, to conform to a very feminine social stereotype in hopes of gaining validation of one's gender, thanks in no small part to society of course, regardless of their actual personalities. I know that, because I've been there. Also, they might simply be ignorant about what constitutes their true gender identity. One cannot say that it is a feminine personality that makes up gender identity because 1stly, we often have several different personalities in diffierent situations and 2ndly, many people who's gender instinct are female identified have strong/dominant personalities that society has labelled "masculine", regardless of physical sex. For any old-fashioned man to resort to using transwomen as a placeholder for their old-style sexist fantasies, because transwomen are under that pressure and thus exhibit that trait even if its harmful to themselves and does not help in the long run, seems like a inconsiderate, ignorant and selfish act on the part of the man. True chivalry would dictate they not exploit these transwomen, and behave instead like the admirers from the 2nd category.

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:13 am Another type of admirer are women who are specifically looking for a transgendered woman. They actually prefer to be with a feminine man, for lack of a better description. Most of these were women who found out that a boyfriend or husband was transgendered and enjoyed it. Now having moved on they still want to have the kind of relationship one can only have with a pre-op male to female transsexual. They are ok with being considered lesbians, even though they themselves don't consider themselves to be lesbians and would never pursue a relationship with a natal female.

Elizabeth

No. Any woman who dates a transwoman because they enjoy having a feminine man, is still seeing the transwoman in question as a man. Very disrespectful and once again, it is exploitation and manipulation to me. Such relationships often turn ugly because a transwoman who wants to have the op feels like they're held back. Even for someone like me who has no long term plans of having the op, and who is lesbian, I would not date them, because bottom line, they're straight women who want a man, and I am not a man.

Thats my take on the type of admirers listed here. There is a reason I don't join most of these social groups like yours Eliz. While I'd love to meet the ones in category 2, the other 3 types will just disgust, insult and ultimately anger me.

Punkypink,

This is just to say that I totally agree with your view towards "admirers" of ts women. I think you have described the reality of such "admirations" very well.

I think the term confuses people. Maybe I'm being simple but "transexual" seems to me to be a stage between one sex and the other and if a person who was born with guy parts going through all this trouble (hormones, Surgery etc) I think they ought to be simply women (or men if going the other way)

And as far as how much is done to achieve that? Again I'm maybe being simple but a man taking Estrogen and has an orchiectomy is "women enough" if you ask me. Thats dedication to doing the transition. And for that matter going on Estrogen and Antiandrogens would seem to me to be enough to qualify as well.

I think the focus on who wants to have sex and with what bits is sort of silly. It seems to me the person is who you want to "couple" with and not so much which bits. Heck why not have a focus on which part of the body you want to have sex with and ignore the person connected? Mouth? Ass? Vagina? Penis? Its enough to make me go but an inflatable doll.... NOT.

mrt (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:54 pm I think the term confuses people. Maybe I'm being simple but "transexual" seems to me to be a stage between one sex and the other and if a person who was born with guy parts going through all this trouble (hormones, Surgery etc) I think they ought to be simply women (or men if going the other way)

Well, yes and no. See sex, physical sex, is very simply, the chromosomes one has. A transwoman will sadly always be XY no matter how perfect a vagina she has constructed for her.

Transsexual is simply an adjective, akin to being chinese, being blonde, being slim. One can be a woman and a transsexual too. A chinese woman, a blonde woman, a slim woman, a transsexual woman.

mrt (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:54 pm And as far as how much is done to achieve that? Again I'm maybe being simple but a man taking Estrogen and has an orchiectomy is "women enough" if you ask me. Thats dedication to doing the transition. And for that matter going on Estrogen and Antiandrogens would seem to me to be enough to qualify as well.

Far simpler.

If a person's natural instinct is to identify as a woman, even if he/she does nothing about it, that is woman enough. Afterall I've done none of what you've suggested for the criteria of being woman enough... would you say I'm not woman enough?

mrt (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:54 pm I think the focus on who wants to have sex and with what bits is sort of silly. It seems to me the person is who you want to "couple" with and not so much which bits. Heck why not have a focus on which part of the body you want to have sex with and ignore the person connected? Mouth? Ass? Vagina? Penis? Its enough to make me go but an inflatable doll.... NOT.

Of course its silly. It's beyond silly. It can be harmful. At least inflatable dolls have no feelings, transwomen however, have feelings. But for some people, their selfish sexual gratification comes 1st. What can we do? At the very least, stop validating such behaviour.

...............

punkypink (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:11 pm These are the genuine admirers, people who respect us as fellow humans for the courage, sense of justice and other positive attributes we exhibit. They are the ones who humanise us, who rightly see beyond the superficial, who share our sense of social justice. Goodness knows we need to be humanised. I want to be seen as a HUMAN BEING, not a trans, a shemale, a ladyboy, a girl with a dick yada yada etc. I am much more than just the product of a girl in a boy's body, and it is this type of admirers who make it a point to accept us as fellow humans and not get stuck on the superficial "unique-ness" who are deserving of our mutual respect and friendship.

........................

Punky

If you are as beautiful and feminine as your avatar suggests (thought that it might actually be you) you should not have any problem being accepted as a real girl. Unless, of course, you make it a point to tell everybody that you have a dick. Only the other girls with whom you desire an intimate relationship have a need to know.

Society has to be able to differentiate between women and men for the purpose of reproduction. Beyond that, way to much emphas is placed on separation based on ones genitals.

There should not be any need for public separation based on ones genetilia as long as adequate privacy is provided. Only the human species, in some societies, requires such unnatural separation.

Girls like you who are able to live and present yourselves as true women are more fortunate than most.

Bless you, Girl!