Cautionary message about Amazon Eve

[Jungles]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

Thought about it. Didn't ring true.

At no point have I so much as suggested anyone feel bad about they're attracted to, so we can discard that right away.

My issue is with individuals who experience extreme revulsion upon the sight of something that doesn't appeal to them.

I don't think you've really thought this through.

Revulsion and attraction are on the same scale.

Taken to it's logical conclusion you're saying you don't hate gay men for being attracted to other men, you hate them for not being attracted to other women.

Even if your cause was geared toward getting everyone to be attracted to everything equally, it's still a critique against what people are attracted to.

In the context of forming a relationship, you simply can't force someone to like all people equally (whether it's against revulsion or for attraction, it's the same thing). No one should have that kind of control over an individual's preference. There are many sexual minorities whom I'm sure would be able to explain this to you in great detail.

For example, on a hetrosexual date, is it wrong for a woman to ask the man what he does for a living because she's looking for a mate who could support a family? Of course not.

Would you not agree that it would wrong for that man to then say "I'm a doctor" when he's really only a garbage collector? The man's motivation is to be accepted by the woman so he could have sex regardless of how she feels about the deception. Is that the most important thing? Sex by any means necessary? Doesn't the woman's preference matter?

Now, that said, in the context of pornography, where it's all about the sexual excitement over imagery, you may have a case as long as the illusion is preserved.

After all, in this forum, people like seeing women suddenly hulk out. There has never been an instance of this in real life, so naturally it's all fake. People are willing to accept that illusion as long as details don't come to light that shatter it. Once those details show up, it's our natural instinct to evaluate if this is a suitable mate, and if it turns out the she is a he, and you're not attracted to a he, then individual preference on a mate takes precedence.

[Ilovebe]

Should all female heterosexual and gay porn fail to arose, since, of course, all males were female at one point in time before the andronization process?

Originally Posted by liveordie83

Putting an orange peel on the apple doesn't make the apple an orange. The apple will always be what it is on the inside no matter what!

You look at the orange peel and call it an orange without batting an eye. Now what if that apple has the chance to shed this false skin? Are you seriously going to argue that it's an orange?

That analogy, however, falls on the assumption that gender and sex are analogous constructs, and gender is an objective, dictohomous concept rather than a somewhat subjective, continuous concept. What is and what is an immediately observable phenotype is different than what once was and what is not empirically observable. I'm not saying that transgendered people should hide their past from someone with whom they start a relationship. That is a major part of their history and major parts of one's history should be shared with loved ones. However, the concept of what someone is in the present tense is not always necessarily defined by what they once were.

[Clickme]

The apple will always be what it is on the inside no matter what!

I think the thing people don't really get is that gender has everything to do with what's "inside". If someone is truly of one gender inside and the outside they were born with doesn't match, then they should have every right to change that peel, or "shed that skin" like you said. But too often is seems that they think people should reverse that and force their insides to reflect their outsides.

So if that Apple wears an Orange peel, people will expect to bite into an Orange. That is understandable. The part that fails is that people will then assume the Apple should become an Orange, rather than just shedding the Peel, because they expected to bite into an Orange damn it! Fail.

It seems to many people get Gender confused with things like Genetics and Genitals. Sure they sound a bit similar, but that doesn't mean they are hte same. ;p

[LOD]

Originally Posted by Clickme

I think the thing people don't really get is that gender has everything to do with what's "inside". If someone is truly of one gender inside and the outside they were born with doesn't match, then they should have every right to change that peel, or "shed that skin" like you said. But too often is seems that they think people should reverse that and force their insides to reflect their outsides.

So if that Apple wears an Orange peel, people will expect to bite into an Orange. That is understandable. The part that fails is that people will then assume the Apple should become an Orange, rather than just shedding the Peel, because they expected to bite into an Orange damn it! Fail.

It seems to many people get Gender confused with things like Genetics and Genitals. Sure they sound a bit similar, but that doesn't mean they are hte same. ;p

Exactly what I was meaning master ^^

[The Warlock]

Originally Posted by qzar9999

However, someone who does not actively discriminate against homosexuals and who's never said that they "feel gay" upon seeing a naked man, and has only expressed a preference not to because it's a turn-off for them--me, for instance--doesn't deserve to be automatically judged homophobic, and has every right to disagree with you when you call them that.

If you find a woman attractive until you learn that she is transgendered, and then you're no longer attracted to her, that means you're a homophobe. Know why? Because it means you think either a: she is really a gay man in disguise or b: because it means you're really attracted to a man and therefore you're gay, and you think either of these things is bad or wrong. And no matter which one you pick you're also a prick, because you think 'she's not really a woman, she's just pretending to be one.'

If you're not attracted to a woman and learn that she's transgendered, and then say 'well that figures,' it doesn't mean you're a homophobe, but it does mean you're an asshole.

Someone please, lock or delete this thread already.

The Warlock

[Rachel Bronwyn]

And we have a winner! Give the Warlock a medal!

Originally Posted by Jungles

I don't think you've really thought this through.

Nice to see you have a better grasp of what goes on in my brain than I.

Revulsion and attraction are on the same scale.

No, they're not. Revulsion is extreme. Attraction varies in degree.

Even if your cause was geared toward getting everyone to be attracted to everything equally, it's still a critique against what people are attracted to.

No, it's not. It's a critique against irrational response to benign stimuli. The fact one finds the stimuli unattractive is of no concern to me nor is what they do find appealing. The extreme response and it's irrational basis are the issue.

I've no interest in everyone being attracted to everything equally. Don't know where you got that from.

In the context of forming a relationship, you simply can't force someone to like all people equally

No shit.

(whether it's against revulsion or for attraction, it's the same thing).

No, it's not. Challenging someone to examine their highly irrational, extreme response to something benign is not the same as forcing someone to not be offended by something or find it attractive. Saying "Your treatment of gay people and response to situations you perceive as gay is irrational" is not the same as saying "You need to learn to find this sexy/not interpret this as gross." When someone's displeasure with a particular stimuli is due to senseless bigotry, challenging them to get the hell over it has to do with that senseless bias, not objective stimuli experienced as attractive or offensive. There's no intention to make the stimuli attractive to them nor is there any intention to make it less repulsive, only to expose the profound irrationality of the basis of their offense. Even once examined, the stimuli my remain unappealing. The faulty logic upon which it stands, which is harmful to others, will dissipate though.

And yeah, when what offends you is based on irrational beliefs about other human beings, you should confront those ideas as they're profoundly harmful to others. When your irrational revulsion hurts other people it should be critiqued.

No one should have that kind of control over an individual's preference.

Preference and damaging biases based on irrationality are not the same thing. Everyone is entitled to challenge everyone else's irrational biases when those biases are harmful to others.

There are many sexual minorities whom I'm sure would be able to explain this to you in great detail.

Like...... me?

For example, on a hetrosexual date, is it wrong for a woman to ask the man what he does for a living because she's looking for a mate who could support a family? Of course not.

Wrong? No. Petty? Yes. I can't stand people who seek partners with the intention of finding someone to depend on.

Would you not agree that it would wrong for that man to then say "I'm a doctor" when he's really only a garbage collector? The man's motivation is to be accepted by the woman so he could have sex regardless of how she feels about the deception. Is that the most important thing? Sex by any means necessary? Doesn't the woman's preference matter?

That's entirely dependent on one's personal ethics. To the dude who got laid, no, the woman's preference doesn't matter as his intention was to get laid, not to support the woman and her future babies. I wouldn't date a guy like that but ethics aren't universal. I also wouldn't sleep with someone I couldn't trust to tell me their actual occupation.

Now, that said, in the context of pornography, where it's all about the sexual excitement over imagery, you may have a case as long as the illusion is preserved.

Yep.

After all, in this forum, people like seeing women suddenly hulk out. There has never been an instance of this in real life, so naturally it's all fake. People are willing to accept that illusion as long as details don't come to light that shatter it.

Those taking in this form of titillation are entirely aware it's fake. Those details came to light before anyone began making girly muscle videos, yet no one cares until the dreaded Y chromosome makes it's entrance!

Once those details show up, it's our natural instinct to evaluate if this is a suitable mate, and if it turns out the she is a he, and you're not attracted to a he, then individual preference on a mate takes precedence.

Yes, because people who "act" in porn and jiggle flicks are TOTALLY attainable and interested in the people who watch their work.

Porn and jiggle videos aren't about seeking mates. They're about getting off.

If someone physically and psychologically fits the description of an attractive woman and you find them appealing UNTIL you find out they have a Y chromosome, you are shallow. When sexually enjoying the image of a psychological woman with a female body which you find particularly attractive is overridden by your revulsion over the concept of sexually enjoying someone with the same chromosomes as you, you're a homophobe. A Y chromosome doesn't make you a "he", by the way. That notion is pretty bigoted.

It's everyone's right to be shallow. It's everyone's right to be a homophobe. It's also everyone's right to deem other people's irrational, hateful beliefs wrong and to challenge people on them.

[qzar9999]

Originally Posted by The Warlock

If you find a woman attractive until you learn that she is transgendered, and then you're no longer attracted to her, that means you're a homophobe. Know why? Because it means you think either a: she is really a gay man in disguise or b: because it means you're really attracted to a man and therefore you're gay, and you think either of these things is bad or wrong. And no matter which one you pick you're also a prick, because you think 'she's not really a woman, she's just pretending to be one.'

If you're not attracted to a woman and learn that she's transgendered, and then say 'well that figures,' it doesn't mean you're a homophobe, but it does mean you're an asshole.

Someone please, lock or delete this thread already.

The Warlock

More opinions stated as facts, I see. Hey Warlock, do me a favor and find the post in this thread where I said "I was attracted to Eve, then I found out she was TG and now I'm not," or some variant thereof. Go ahead, I'll wait.

*time passes*

Didn't find it, I see. That's because it's not here. I've agreed that it would matter to some people, and that people taking money in a business transaction should be honest with their customers, but that's about it.

Also, your argument doesn't hold water, because you forgot option C: Someone may find out something in someone's past that they have an issue with--for whatever reason--and no longer see that person in the same light. If I were attracted to/interested in a woman and found out that years ago she was an addict, or a Scientologist, or a guidance counselor, or whatever, and it was significant enough to change the way I saw her as a person, it might change my being attracted to her. I'd say finding out someone used to be a man is pretty damned significant, wouldn't you? I'll tell you like I told Rachel: In your opinion, that would be homophobia. You're more than entitled to your opinion. But it's not fact.

Though I do agree this thread is getting out of control and *really* doesn't fit in the Growth forum...

[Jungles]

I'm just too offended by what this Rachel person has to say to even dignify it with a direct response.

I'm all for giving people equal opportunities in life. I don't let someone's sexual preferences affect my everyday treatment of them in business or pleasure, as long as they aren't harming the weak or innocent with their actions.

But who I like to fuck is entirely my decision, who I don't like to fuck is also entirely my decision, and I don't owe anyone in the entire world an apology over that preference. If someone I don't like to fuck tries to trick me into fucking them then I have every right to be upset with them. That is every individual's fundamental right, and it sickens me that someone like Rachel has the nerve to impose their sexual preferences on me or anyone else.

I certainly wouldn't think of telling Rachel who she should like to fuck, and I'm not offended if it doesn't match my own preferences. It's entirely up to her. And I'm sure she practices what she preaches and routinely fucks every homeless, sickly, toothless person who wants sex with her because she certainly wouldn't let her own revulsion get in the way of anyone else's desires. But that's her preference, and she no right to impose this on anyone else.

[CandyKing]

This is devolving into some mad rage. People need to stop getting personal, personally if I was attracted to her and found out she was a he, would my attraction lessen? Yes, I don't go for the TG thing, I recognize that. However do I think she needs to be outed or that shes hurting people? No, none of my business anyways, shes a professional, she does her job, that's that. I'm not a homophobe, but I'm not going to pretend to be attracted to her if I found out that her 'original' gender was male, but at the same time I'm not going to scream and cry and bitch, she is what she is, accept it, and either continue to like her, or move on, I won't go out of my way to find out, because those little details frankly aren't what I care about when I'm looking at a model anyways. Who people like to fuck and personal questions on dates seems to be largely irrelevant and is in fact an entirely separate issue from the OP, so I won't comment on that at all, thanks for coming!

The only real issue is the person calling out "Betrayed" which implies she has a personal obligation to him, which she didn't, and if it affects your enjoyment so be it, but in no way does she "have" to reveal herself either way, and people shouldn't be getting pissed if she didn't.

This is all moot though, since from what I read, the OP isn't even this Amazon Eve ANYWAYS, so yeah, there's that too. Speculation is Speculative.

As for The Warlock? Finding out that she was a man would spoil my enjoyment, because I just don't swing for the TG thing, the same way I can appreciate a view until I know all of the details, and then find out nothing about it attracts me. I won't ogle her or go out with her, will I hate her or get pissed or discriminate against her? No. Seperate issues, saying people are homophobes for NOT being attracted to someone who is pretty but is a known TG is just a ridiculous opinion.

A good example is in fact, Sunny in Philadelphia, Mac is banging a 'transexual' (I don't know if she really is), is she hot, yes, am I attracted to her, no, I can make the distinction, and so can many others. And I MEAN the distinction between being physically attracted and noting that she is attractive. In the show it is definatly "shown" that she is formerly male, but she is still quite the looker. Whether an ACTUAL transexual actor plays her though, I do not know this.

I think I went off track, hmm.

[LOD]

Originally Posted by qzar9999

Also, your argument doesn't hold water, because you forgot option C: Someone may find out something in someone's past that they have an issue with--for whatever reason--and no longer see that person in the same light. If I were attracted to/interested in a woman and found out that years ago she was an addict, or a Scientologist, or a guidance counselor, or whatever, and it was significant enough to change the way I saw her as a person, it might change my being attracted to her. I'd say finding out someone used to be a man is pretty damned significant, wouldn't you? I'll tell you like I told Rachel: In your opinion, that would be homophobia. You're more than entitled to your opinion. But it's not fact.

Dude, this is the issue I'm taking with your post. You are still making the argument that the person who went through transition was male to begin with. They were always female ^^;

But don't get me wrong, I'm not going to call you a homophobe. Just like me I know you adore hot girl on girl action. And just like me you aren't attracted to gay men. Now this is far from being a homophobe. But when phrases like "I don't agree with their lifestyle choice." come into play when talking about the men, while you continue to get your rocks off to lesbian porn hypocrisy is leering it's ugly head.

[Sephie]

Originally Posted by CandyKing

A good example is in fact, Sunny in Philadelphia, Mac is banging a 'transexual' (I don't know if she really is), is she hot, yes, am I attracted to her, no, I can make the distinction, and so can many others.

I think I went off track, hmm.

I have had non tg friends accused of being TG, and one MTF friend who nobody would take to be TG. Most of my FTM friends pass well.

[qzar9999]

Originally Posted by liveordie83

Dude, this is the issue I'm taking with your post. You are still making the argument that the person who went through transition was male to begin with. They were always female ^^;

But don't get me wrong, I'm not going to call you a homophobe. Just like me I know you adore hot girl on girl action. And just like me you aren't attracted to gay men. Now this is far from being a homophobe. But when phrases like "I don't agree with their lifestyle choice." come into play when talking about the men, while you continue to get your rocks off to lesbian porn hypocrisy is leering it's ugly head.

Even if their gender identity was always female, they used to be *physically* male, and had to have operations/therapy to become female on the outside, LOD, which still seems pretty significant. And I never said "I don't agree with their lifestyle choice," I said I never brought it up with my gay friends because it's really not any of my business to try and tell them what they should or shouldn't do with their life, or that they're "wrong" for being gay. I'd definitely see the hypocrisy in condemning gay men while being ok with lesbian porn. Jecilyn's complaint was with my use of the phrase "lifestyle choice" in the first place, which I since retracted and apologized for.

But it's much appreciated that you recognize I'm not a homophobe. Thank you.