Cautionary message about Amazon Eve

[OhZone]

I'm not sure I agree, Rachel. I am not intolerant of tgd people or anything. Nor afraid. Nor prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. lulz. Actually, I only hate my boss and certain politicians. Anyways, I think you are using gender as one's mental gender or brain's gender. That's only part of the question. I don't know. I really have mixed feelings about this. If I found out a girl I had made love to was originally a guy I'm not sure how I would take it. As for fapping to a female who used to be a guy, I think I would feel a little cheated, especially if I had paid for it. I don't hate Eve or wish ill upon her. I just have mixed feelings on this topic. Definitely.

I do love TG fantasies. I am a heterosexual but not macho. I am only attracted to women. But I do love TG fantasies and process. But, in RL? Very differnt.

[bacattack]

Originally Posted by OhZone

I do love TG fantasies. I am a heterosexual but not macho. I am only attracted to women. But I do love TG fantasies and process. But, in RL? Very differnt.

That's how I generally feel to. I wish Eve would be honest, but then again she would likely lose a good portion of her business if she did so.

I personally wouldn't pay for any kind of session (I'll take my sex the old-fashioned way, by being in love with a girl), but I understand why she would be misleading, but I also understand why people aren't happy about it.

At the same time, if you are attracted to her, even after knowing full well she has a Y chromosome . . .

You have every right to feel that way. She really made sure she turned out hot.

[LOD]

Lore I understand completely with what your feelings about the subject are, and for the most part I agree with you. I seen Her post and I agree that the language was harsh but I also agreed 100% with what that post said.

Also I still highly doubt the person he linked to is Amazon Eve...

[Clickme]

I agree with Jecilyn and Rachel in that someone's gender is not set by their Chromosomes.

And before I continue, this post is NOT directed at any one person, but is simply me saying my piece. I wish to apologize upfront if I offend anyone, but I do not apologize for my views. Oh, and there WILL be rambling. Now, with that out of the way...

People need to learn that the way they respond to someone has nothing to do with the person they are responding to. Just because someone says something, or does something, does NOT mean you have to respond any way or another.

If you are attracted to someone, and find out they are not who or what you thought they are, then that's all on you. People have a right to live their lives however they want, calling themselves whatever they want. If you find yourself "duped" by you own feelings, then that's something you have to look at. However, most people find that blaming the other person is the easier thing to do. No one likes looking at themselves.

And just because someone says something horrible nad discriminatory, it does not mean someone can haul off and react without someone else getting pissed. People need to know that one's actions have consequences, some unseen, and others jsut ignored.

I will say that in this particular case, no one was right. This whole thing was handled horribly, save the fact that Lore has every right to ban anyone he wishes for whatever reason. And actually I think it shows very well on Lore's character that the ban was only a temp-ban when he could have easily perma-banned Persephone. It shows that Lore is not [insert some generic over the top name here].

Like I said, this whole thing went from one bad post to another and ended up becoming a huge sink-hole in hte forum. Did Sour have a valid post, yes. Did Persephone have a valid reason to be upset, yes. Did either one handle it well, no.

So yes, I'm not saying this post has any point other than to throw my voice out there, but yeah, back to my other point... People need to start taking their own views and recognizable their own feelings as a product of who THEY are, and no one else.

As for Persephone... I really will miss her while she's banned, but I look forward to her return. I felt like she was a very intelligent person with good points and (despite recent outburst), the ability to discuss a topic without resorting to lower forms of forum trolling. I had a lot of fun conversing with her.

[resiz3d]

dang, I missed a whole lotta drama while out sick.

The 2nd link didnt work for me so I couldn't see "the proof" but from the photos and videos I've seen I'm not so certain Eve is TG. Her face doesn't look very "mannish" to me. She has some strong features but they're the same as you see develop in many very tall people due to hormones. (jaw, cheeks)

Her ribcage and her stomach muscles look very feminine along with nicely curved legs and slender arms. I think the internet has some obsession with trying to "out" ppl as being transgendered (like the Lady Gaga rumors flying around. she aint, btw)

If all this is a lie I can see why people would be upset. But at the same time - she's selling fantasy and fantasies are always lies. Just like any stripper feigning interest in you but can't stand you, any phone sex operator who's 400+lbs with horrible acne or may also be male. Unless actual sex is involved I don't see too much harm in it. Just continue believing she's who she claims to be and relax in blissful ignorance.

[Hooded_Miracle]

Goddammit why is this being discussed.

We're on a forum dedicated to fetishes, some so outright bizarre that they are barely comprehensible, and we're trifling with whether someone is male or female or derp de der.

I thought the rule was that if ya don't like, ya don't comment, right? The only exceptions are if something is so horribly bad that there is no hope for redemption, right?

Sure, this is a moral conundrum, but that's what F&BS is for, right?

[LK]

Got me there!

[100Proof]

This is an interesting discussion. Leave it to a "porn" forum to actually be able to have a (mostly) intelligent and rational discussion about such a delicate subject.

Gotta say I'm with Lore on this one. Like him, I hold absolutely no ill will towards anyone based on their sexual preference, gender identity, or taste in clothing. I may not always understand it, but if it makes you happy and you're not hurting anyone, follow your bliss.

That said, deceit is deceit. You can argue semantics until you're blue in the face, but you're still committing a lie of omission if you're TG and don't make that perfectly clear when you're advertising yourself as an object of sexual desire to and <bells and sirens to denote importance> making money off of the dirty thoughts of heterosexual men.

Just like it's not homosexual for a straight man to be attracted to a TG female, it is not always homophobia to not be attracted to a TG female. For many, it's a matter of personal preference. You need to be able to separate disinterest from disgust, fear and/or hatred.

The only remotely close analogy I can make is breast implants. I don't like breast implants. It's a personal thing. If I see a woman with a fantastic rack that looks natural and later find out that she has really well-done and unobvious implants, I will be impressed at the quality, but I will be incredibly disappointed and the attraction will be gone. Does she still have a fantastic rack? Absolutely. But my appreciation for and sexual attraction to that beauty is severely lessened. Is it my hangup? Yes. But if I were paying for a video/photo album/website subscription/etc, it is my right as a consumer to get what I want for what I'm paying for. You can say "but it's all about the fantasy!", but it's MY fantasy. I determine the parameters of my fantasy and I make my purchases accordingly.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

This is positively obscene.

That said, deceit is deceit. You can argue semantics until you're blue in the face, but you're still committing a lie of omission if you're TG and don't make that perfectly clear when you're advertising yourself as an object of sexual desire to and <bells and sirens to denote importance> making money off of the dirty thoughts of heterosexual men.

You?re not entitled to know a detail as personal as whether someone is transgendered. Not releasing such a fact isn?t a lie as IT?S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS. None of her work is transgendered-themed. It is an irrelevant fact. It does not matter if the people you make money off of are men who would be uncomfortable knowing you have a Y chromosome. By all accounts, this person is fulfilling the desire their heterosexual male customers seek.

Just like it's not homosexual for a straight man to be attracted to a TG female, it is not always homophobia to not be attracted to a TG female. For many, it's a matter of personal preference. You need to be able to separate disinterest from disgust, fear and/or hatred.

Homophobia doesn?t always manifest as ?disgust, fear and/or hatred.?

The bottom line is if you enjoy a jiggle video or porn thoroughly due to the chick in it who you find attractive by all accounts, those feelings are genuine. If finding out they have a Y chromosome overrides all those feelings, it?s not a matter of taste as that chromosome would in absolutely no way affect either person in the potential relationship. It?s a matter of discomfort brought on my latent homophobia. It does not change their appearance or personality. It?s completely irrelevant yet it?s being trotted out as an extremely important factor. That?s no different than me discriminating against brunettes who have a recessive red head gene. It does not affect their appearance nor does it affect who they are. But, ewww, they have an icky gene!

It?s only important that this person identify as a transgendered female because after wanking to her, some of the guys who find out she?d biologically male might feel icky due to latent homophobia. Tough shit. It is no one?s job to pander to anyone else?s homophobia. What?s being asked of this person is that she indulge the irrational biases of her customers. Bullshit. You?re not entitled to know personal details about this person. If you feel icky later, it?s entirely due to your homophobia and is your responsibility to get over.

[100Proof]

You make some good points, Rachel, but it's clear we disagree fundamentally in a couple of key ways.

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

That’s no different than me discriminating against brunettes who have a recessive red head gene. It does not affect their appearance nor does it affect who they are. But, ewww, they have an icky gene!

No, that's not the same. If the person had red hair for the first 18-25 years of their life and then had their hair surgically altered to be brown, then yes, I'd say it was the same. The red hair will never come back and there's nothing wrong with that person calling themselves a brunette, but not admitting that you were once a redhead is a lie of omission. A relatively unimportant one, but a lie nonetheless.

It’s only important that this person identify as a transgendered female because after wanking to her, some of the guys who find out she’d biologically male might feel icky due to latent homophobia. Tough shit. It is no one’s job to pander to anyone else’s homophobia. What’s being asked of this person is that she indulge the irrational biases of her customers. Bullshit. You’re not entitled to know personal details about this person. If you feel icky later, it’s entirely due to your homophobia and is your responsibility to get over.

People SHOULD get over their biases. But this involves money changing hands. The fact of the matter is that a lie of omission occurs and the people buying the product might not be getting what they asked for. Should they "get over it"? Probably. And perhaps in time people will. But when you're dealing with a sale of services rendered (particularly of this nature), their biases are precisely what causes them to make said purchase in the first place.

I'm generally pretty good with analogies, but I'm coming up pretty empty here. How about this one? When I look to buy a used car, I always make sure to ask for a vehicle history report to make sure the car has never been in a major accident. The car may be completely rebuilt, look fine, run perfectly well, and do everything I need it to do for years. But I will never buy a car that's been in a major accident. Am I missing out by having that somewhat irrational personal rule? Probably. But if someone sold me a car without telling me that, that's a big no no.

Judging from your tone, I can tell you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. Which is fine. Progress is only made through civil discussion. Here is where I believe we differ:

You feel that a TG woman is exactly the same as a woman from birth post-surgery, should be treated as one, and should have the option to not self-identify in every conceivable situation: what the male apes don't know won't hurt them and they're the ones with the problem anyway.

Edit: It would appear we only disagree on one of these.

I feel that a TG woman is exactly the same as a woman from birth post-surgery, should be treated as one, and should have the option to not self-identify in all situations save for two: where romantic love is involved with another person (as trust and honesty are the foundation of any romantic relationship) and where money is being exchanged under the pretense of sexual services rendered (because of the basic rules of the bartering system re: false advertising).

Feel free to have the last word...

[Rachel Bronwyn]

What is or isn't under her skirt is not your business.

Originally Posted by 100Proof

Feel free to have the last word...

I will.

No, that's not the same. If the person had red hair for the first 18-25 years of their life and then had their hair surgically altered to be brown, then yes, I'd say it was the same. The red hair will never come back and there's nothing wrong with that person calling themselves a brunette, but not admitting that you were once a redhead is a lie of omission. A relatively unimportant one, but a lie nonetheless.

Bullshit. You're not entitled to know whether someone used to be a redhead nor are you entitled to know whether someone has a Y chromosome or used to have male genitals. It's none of your business, even if you're buying their product. so long as it plays no role whatsoever in their product. If their Y chromosome played a role in the product you purchased, it would be pertinent and relevant. It's not. You're demanding someone pander to others' homophobia by ensuring the customer doesn't accidentally enjoy their work. Heaven forbid men having to challenge their own homophobia! There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that someone should have to reveal a personal detail about their life that plays absolutely no role in their product. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THAT INFORMATION. If you were, it would be a lie. It's not.

People SHOULD get over their biases. But this involves money changing hands. The fact of the matter is that a lie of omission occurs and the people buying the product might not be getting what they asked for.

The customer is getting exactly what they ask for. It's only after the user finds out the person they just beat off to is biologically male that their homophobia kicks in. That homophobia is not the purveryor's problem.

Should they "get over it"? Probably. And perhaps in time people will. But when you're dealing with a sale of services rendered (particularly of this nature), their biases are precisely what causes them to make said purchase in the first place.

No, their preferences are precisely what cause them to make said purchase, all of which are fulfilled by the product. The homophobia is the customer's problem. Putting the onus on the purveryor is absurd.

I'm generally pretty good with analogies, but I'm coming up pretty empty here. How about this one? When I look to buy a used car, I always make sure to ask for a vehicle history report to make sure the car has never been in a major accident. The car may be completely rebuilt, look fine, run perfectly well, and do everything I need it to do for years. But I will never buy a car that's been in a major accident. Am I missing out by having that somewhat irrational personal rule? Probably. But if someone sold me a car without telling me that, that's a big no no.

If it's completely irrevelvant, be it someone's biological state or the accident a car has been in that in no way negatively affects it, it's none of your business and is not lying. You're not entitled to irrelevant information simply to avoid challenging your biases. It's only false advertising if what's left unsaid can/will have a negative affect on the buyer later.

The comparison of transgendered people to damaged goods is pretty revolting, by the way.

Judging from your tone, I can tell you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. Which is fine. Progress is only made through civil discussion.

That was a pretty shitty thing to say. I've been profoundly reasonable and civil. I'm not going to act as though you're right though.

Here is where I believe we differ:

You feel that a TG woman is exactly the same as a woman from birth post-surgery, should be treated as one, and should have the option to not self-identify in every conceivable situation: what the male apes don't know won't hurt them and they're the ones with the problem anyway.

Not really but sort of. I've repeatedly said partners are entitled to know if someone is transgendered and that it's in the best interest of the transgendered person to be open about it when it comes to intimate relationships.

Edit: It would appear we only disagree on one of these.

I feel that a TG woman is exactly the same as a woman from birth post-surgery, should be treated as one, and should have the option to not self-identify in all situations save for two: where romantic love is involved with another person (as trust and honesty are the foundation of any romantic relationship) and where money is being exchanged under the pretense of sexual services rendered (because of the basic rules of the bartering system re: false advertising).

This entire premise is incorrect as advertising one's self as a woman when one is a woman and the irrelevent fact they carry a Y chromosome plays no role whatsoever in the product is not false advertising. This person is providing exactly the service the buyers seek.

[qzar9999]

Originally Posted by 100Proof

I feel that a TG woman is exactly the same as a woman from birth post-surgery, should be treated as one, and should have the option to not self-identify in all situations save for two: where romantic love is involved with another person (as trust and honesty are the foundation of any romantic relationship) and where money is being exchanged under the pretense of sexual services rendered (because of the basic rules of the bartering system re: false advertising).

Agreed wholeheartedly. And...

Originally Posted by 100Proof

Feel free to have the last word...

Don't worry, she always does, and this time's no exception. Still going on with that homophobia garbage.