[Please remove]

[omitef]

7 minutes ago, Rising Sun said:

@omitef But sadly, unfair things can sometimes be changed, but not always. The mind never has complete control on instincts and vice versa. We've all done cruel things to other living beings in our lives and almost all of us feel guilty for at least part of these things, but sometimes feeling guilty is all we can do, sometimes because we would really like to change things but we just don't know how to do that...

 

But that's exactly why we need to try and change unfairness. Our society is unfair, and favours certain people (those who have privilege) over others. We all grew up in a society that conditions us to believe that privileged people deserve better than marginalized people. We've been told that unfairness can't be changed, by privileged people, because privileged people want to keep their power, and it's a threat to privileged people when marginalized people start to fight unfairness. If we buy into the mentality that unfairness can't be changed, guess what happens? Society will remain unfair. And produce more generations of people who believe that unfairness can't be changed. It's an endless cycle. We need to break free.

 

15 minutes ago, Rising Sun said:

@omitef

And while I totally sympathize with frustration and sadness, I can't sympathize with violence whatever the reason is, and even more if it says that a whole group of people (in this case, all cisgender straight people) is fundamentally oppressive and evil. I don't believe in good vs evil, it's always more complex than that, and I refuse violence to the point where I stay away from strict ideologies and radical activism, because I've seen where it leads.

 

Two ironies in this discussion:

 

1. it's technically an act of violence to claim that trans people are sexually less desirable than cis people. It's psychological violence. The first thought I had when I came out as trans was, "no one will want me until I have surgery, until I look like a 'real man.'" That thought has haunted me like a ghost, whispering thoughts of self-hate into my ears every night, and to hear it spoken out loud, written on screen, by real people, is like waking from one nightmare into another. I know I am not alone. I know there are thousands of other dreamers like me who have decided the only way to escape this nightmare is to put a gun to their head, a knife to their wrist, and sleep forever. These preferences are beyond harmless, and people need to understand that. 

 

2. You are not cis. Given that you believe preferences for certain genitalia cannot be changed, do you think it's okay for others to discriminate against you as a sexual partner, because you are not cis? 

 

[morallygayro]

 

9 minutes ago, omitef said:

 

 

 

2. You are not cis. Given that you believe preferences for certain genitalia cannot be changed, do you think it's okay for others to discriminate against you as a sexual partner, because you are not cis? 

 

Internalized transphobia, probably.

14 minutes ago, aroMa(n)tisse said:

@Mark What's the correct term for this (denoting someone for whom the partner's gender isn't important)?

 

Also, do you you know a good synonym for 'pre-op transgender' that is shorter than the clumsy 'non-transsexual transgender'? The term 'pre-op' is indeed cringeworthy because it implies that undergoing a GRS is a 'must' for a transgender, which it isn't.

How about just 'transgender'? A trans woman who doesn't want bottom surgery is just as much of a woman as any other woman, after all.

 

Also "transgender" is an adjective, not a noun. Trans people aren't some vague, "other" gender.

[paporomantic]

4 minutes ago, morallygayro said:

How about just 'transgender'? A trans woman who doesn't want bottom surgery is just as much of a woman as any other woman, after all.

 

In non-sexual contexts, they're equal, so I gladly use just 'transgender'. In the sexual context, normal diversity exists (just like blondes are different from brunettes) and I need to distinguish someone with a penis from someone with a vulva.

[morallygayro]

6 minutes ago, aroMa(n)tisse said:

 

In non-sexual contexts, they're equal, so I gladly use just 'transgender'. In the sexual context, normal diversity exists (just like blondes are different from brunettes) and I need to distinguish someone with a penis from someone with a vulva.

How about no? People have all kinds of bodies. I don't distinguish between sexual partners based on dick or labia size. And the size of a person's phallus - just so you know, a clitoris and a penis are both phallic, and except for the semen and urethra they are really the same body part and only distinguished from one another by size - is just another normal part of sexual diversity.

[paporomantic]

It's good that you're so universal, but please explain whom you consider a woman for sexual purposes and why the gender matters at all.

[Rising Sun]

@omitef Society is unfair, yes. But since when can we change what turns us on ? If you can, you can change your sexual orientation. Studies have shown that you can't. You can't choose what turns you on. That's unfair, yes, but culture and society can change. What turns us on is located deep in our synapses rather than in our culture, and unless if in the far future, devices are made to rebuild our whole neuronal network, we have no way to control that. For example, i can't help it if i don't find boobs especially attractive, and no amount of self-convincing will start to make me think "yay boobs, I love boobs !". Seriously, you can do that ? Who can do that, actually ?

And i never said that trans people are less sexually desirable, objectively. I just said that you can't choose others' personal preferences. And others have rejected me several times, for physical appearance reasons and because of my neurological disorder. Does it feel unfair, absolutely. But I've accepted the fact that for many people, I'm not attractive and I'll never be (and largely because I don't send them the attractive feminine vibes they require in order to feel attracted ; they do feel that there is something unusual with me, they told me about it many times, and i have no reason to feel angry at them for not being attracted to that). I don't feel entitled in changing other people's attraction feelings. Others have no right to hate you for what you are. But they have no obligation to find you attractive either, because that's entitlement, and entitlement is coercitive and not OK. If there is something I'm already happy with, it's when somebody can't be attracted to me but they still love me all the same, platonically, yes, but they love me all the same ; this matters a lot to me. It can be frustrating, but I refuse forcing someone to be attracted to me, that's not OK at all.

[Mark]

1 hour ago, Rising Sun said:

For example, isn't it unfair in itself to be attracted to only one sex or one gender ? Shouldn't all people be pan, in an ideal world ? I'm sure that many people would be pan if they could. The thing is, they can't.

 

Thing is that pan dosn't mean attracted to everyone. What it does mean is that the people I am attracted to can be of any gender.

[Rising Sun]

Just now, Mark said:

 

Thing is that pan dosn't mean attracted to everyone. What it does mean is that the people I am attracted to can be of any gender.

 

Oops, yes, what I meant is that many people would really like to not have any sex or gender preference at all. But sadly this can't be controlled...

[morallygayro]

8 minutes ago, aroMa(n)tisse said:

It's good that you're so universal, but please explain whom you consider a woman for sexual purposes and why the gender matters at all.

A woman is someone who identifies as a woman or with the female side of the gender spectrum. For sexual purposes, it matters if we're attracted to one another. And that's not the most important part of "who is a woman" because women aren't playthings or sex objects. Something that, wrt LGBT women, you seem to have a hard time grasping.

 

It also matters because I'm attracted to women and not men. Someone not being a woman is a turn-off for me.

 

Anyway, is "universal" your cute little code word for "doesn't hate trans people"?

[paporomantic]

3 minutes ago, Mark said:

What it does mean is that the people I am attracted to can be of any gender.

 

This is a correct way to define it, but the question why it's fair that not all people are indifferent to gender for sexual purposes (that includes pan, ace, pan-grace,...) still stands.

[morallygayro]

4 minutes ago, aroMa(n)tisse said:

 

This is a correct way to define it, but the question why it's fair that not all people are indifferent to gender for sexual purposes (that includes pan, ace, pan-grace,...) still stands.

Are you seriously going to use acceptance of trans people to say that it's unfair of lesbians to not be open to having sex with men? Your creep factor is going up by the minute, @aroMa(n)tisse. I hope you stay far away from all LGBT women.

[Mark]

31 minutes ago, aroMa(n)tisse said:

@Mark What's the correct term for this (denoting someone for whom the partner's gender isn't important)?

Pansexual or panromantic, depending on the type of partnership. I've also heard of pandominant and pansubmissive.

[paporomantic]

9 minutes ago, morallygayro said:

A woman is someone who identifies as a woman or with the female side of the gender spectrum. For sexual purposes, it matters if we're attracted to one another.

 

I actually like the definition 'a woman is everyone to whom I can potentially be attracted'. The problem is that it's not objective, while the definition from your first sentence depends only on the opinion of that particular person, and then it's hard to find out what gender a person identifies as without asking them expressly; as a corollary, it turns out that you can't be sexually attracted to anyone about whose self-identification you haven't got reliable information, because you don't know their gender until then.

2 minutes ago, Mark said:

Pansexual or panromantic, depending on the type of partnership. I've also heard of pandominant and pansubmissive.

 

I wanted an umbrella term for pansexuals, gray-pansexuals and asexuals.

[morallygayro]

Just now, aroMa(n)tisse said:

 

I actually like the definition 'a woman is everyone to whom I can potentially be attracted'. 

That's not how I defined "woman". A woman is someone who identifies as a woman or with the female side of the gender spectrum. I can potentially be attracted to anyone who fits that description. I might experience primary sexual attraction to someone who I mistakenly thought was a woman, but I'm only interested in being with women and any attraction I feel to non-women fades when I find out they're not a woman.

[paporomantic]

The way you're describing it, it looks as though, after you experience the primary sexual attraction to a person, you ask them, 'What gender do you identify as?', and decide if you're interested or not basing on their answer.

 

So, if I don't know the orientation of a person who asks me about my gender, my Nash strategy is to flip a coin and tell that I'm a man if it falls on heads and a woman if it falls on tails. (Just kidding. I mean, everyone has a set of 'signs of a woman' that can help them make a conjecture about another person's gender before they ask about the gender expressly.)

 

I mean, I don't see why, the bio-sex being an artificial social category, the gender isn't an artificial construct (you might have noticed that a decent %-age of aces id as agender) and why I should be frowned upon for not considering people with penises as prospective sexual partners while you have all the right in the world (which I'm not going to argue with) not to consider people id'ing as men for this role.

[morallygayro]

17 minutes ago, aroMa(n)tisse said:

The way you're describing it, it looks as though, after you experience the primary sexual attraction to a person, you ask them, 'What gender do you identify as?', and decide if you're interested or not basing on their answer.

No. If they indicate that they're not a woman, such as by modifying their bodies in ways associated with trans men, by referring to themselves as men, by actively presenting themselves as non-women, or by using he/him pronouns or a name associated with men and not women, I lose interest in them. And just because I'm attracted to women doesn't mean I'm attracted to every woman.

 

[Tal Shi'ar]

Since this thread is getting to the point where it's somewhat getting derailed, and heated enough where some posts are getting close to being insulting, I'm temporary locking this thread.

EDIT: Since it's been over 24 hours, I'm unlocking the thread. While there can be some interesting conversation that's possible, if it gets hairy again it will be permanently locked.

[Cassiopeia]

(edit: yes, my browser still had it thanks)

 

I think a major misunderstanding here is the assumption that a trans woman's sexuality would be the same as the generic (straight) cis male desires and roles. I don't think that would be true. I guess bit less 'creepy transphobic porn for straight cis guys', more along the lines of what for example Amanita and Nomi on the first season of Sense8 had? At least that is closer to what my idea of irl lesbian sex is. (Trans women please correct me if I got it wrong)

 

Anyway, from a non-straight perspective, hetero (sexual) culture is super weird? In hetero situations usually its just assumed that somebody will be penetrated, its obvious who is the top, who is the bottom, what is foreplay, what is The Sex? That people would want certain positions, certain types of touch? That their parts will just fit together? They just assume that the top person has to have a certain type of genitalia or body type, be taller, older, more 'masculine', more into sex, more aggressive, and definitely the one who does the penetration...why? That just does not always apply? That whole norm is so rigid, so boring.

People take so many things for granted.

But its not. Yes, lets say you two are lucky, you are both queer, you are each others type, there is mutual sexual attraction, but what if you are both 100% bottoms? Ooops. You might manage to compromise, but in some cases people are just not compatible. Like two pillow princesses will have a quite awkward intimacy, and the whole thing might not even work out altogether.

These preferences are just so complex, that people have to discuss them. There is topping from the bottom, and quite often people are switch. But in what percentages? And when? It depends on mood, energy levels, gender presentation and or experience of two (or more persons). Some people don't give head, at all. Some people like rimjobs but not anal penetration? Some people don't like penetration at all. Some people only like dry humping and frottage. In some sex positions (for example scissoring) you just can't use a protective barrier, so its automatically not on the menu. Oral sex might be foreplay according to some, others would consider it as The Sex....etc.

I honestly have no idea how straight folks get laid without stuff like the hanky code or detailed dating profiles....Do they just go for the normative stuff, and refuse to talk about these things? Why are some of those preferences treated like a fetish in case of straight guys? I have no idea.

 

If everything else clicks, I would be 100% okay to be with a trans woman, any sort of trans lady bits and all, but I think its less likely that she would want me. I think its logical that trans people would choose each over the cis any day. We live in a transphobic society, and I'm trying to unlearn that crap, but its never going to be perfect so its reasonable if they'd prefer somebody with similar experiences.

 

I have issues with the "doesn't care about their own pleasure" part. For me, enthusiastic consent is not just important, but also a turn on. I do want (need) my partner to want me. I do get off on watching (and making) them get off, if that makes sense? That's why mainstream 'lesbian' porn is kind of meh, because you can totally tell if its fake. They can moan and scream all they want, but that's not really it, you can just tell if its genuine.

If my partner is not really into it, I will loose interest very quickly.

I like sex as a mutual thing, so not caring about their own pleasure would actually defeat the purpose of the whole thing. I don't really do stone butches because we just aren't sexually compatible. I'm way to switch (and too top) for this whole stone culture thing

As in a context of an ace partner, its really a minefield for me.

Under certain circumstances, I would have sex with an ace person. For example, if they are experimenting, questioning, its fine, why not. I'm happy to help figuring things out, especially that I have no strings to attach, so either way they decide, its fine.

But with someone who knows they are absolutely ace, I'm not sure. First of all, it would not work, the same way the stone thing does not work for me. Also, I do not want to make anybody to perform to allonormativity for me in any way, cos I find that whole concept triggering. I have tried to perform to amatonormativity in the past and that wasn't a healthy thing really. It would just bring the whole thing back again, the parallel is just too obvious and it does hit home. I do not want to feel like a tool for anyones guilt trip/self harm session, because in a way that's what it is. (Or at least it was for me)

I'd rather try to validate the hell out of my friends' identities, because we need that stuff like air under heteronormativity.

Talking about such feelings would be fine, but I'd rather not participate in anyone efforts to attempt to "fix themselves" or to "cater for my needs" because they think otherwise I won't value their friendship or abandon them or something. Its nice to have them, but I do not expect sexual or sensual intimacy to be automatically part of the companionship package. I'm happy to do intimacy in a way that's suitable for the people involved, focusing on stuff we both genuinely enjoy. I do not want my friends to feel broken or inadequate or pressured to change who they are for me. I have spent the majority of my adult life trying to kick heteroculture out of my bedroom, do you think I'd take alloculture for granted, or even too seriously?

 

 

[paporomantic]

Thanks a lot for the detailed answer, @Cassiopeia! 

 

6 hours ago, Cassiopeia said:

I honestly have no idea how straight folks get laid without stuff like the hanky code or detailed dating profiles....Do they just go for the normative stuff, and refuse to talk about these things? Why are some of those preferences treated like a fetish in case of straight guys? I have no idea.

 

I guess it has to do with the fact that there's a wider selection of potential hetero partners than potential gay/lesbian ones - if the current partner is not OK with or 'not hot' in the 'favorite' position, a hetero is more likely to start looking for another partner, whereas a gay/lesbian is more hard-pressed to make things work with the current partner (find a mutually satisfactory position).

 

The hanky code is a useful convention that heteros should adopt too because it saves a lot of time in dating and prevents the pain of rejection in many cases (it's more painful to break up after a sex failure than not approach an incompatible person at all).

[Mark]

8 hours ago, Cassiopeia said:

Anyway, from a non-straight perspective, hetero (sexual) culture is super weird? In hetero situations usually its just assumed that somebody will be penetrated, its obvious who is the top, who is the bottom, what is foreplay, what is The Sex? That people would want certain positions, certain types of touch? That their parts will just fit together? They just assume that the top person has to have a certain type of genitalia or body type, be taller, older, more 'masculine', more into sex, more aggressive, and definitely the one who does the penetration...why? That just does not always apply? That whole norm is so rigid, so boring.

 

I also find it very weird.
It seems to work out for many people, though I don't have a clue why.
What especially confuses me is the whole "men must do X" and "women must do Y" even for things which don't involve breasts, penises or vaginas.

Maybe you need to need to be heteroromantic and heterosexual to get it.

[paporomantic]

13 hours ago, Cassiopeia said:

I have issues with the "doesn't care about their own pleasure" part. For me, enthusiastic consent is not just important, but also a turn on. I do want (need) my partner to want me. I do get off on watching (and making) them get off, if that makes sense? That's why mainstream 'lesbian' porn is kind of meh, because you can totally tell if its fake. They can moan and scream all they want, but that's not really it, you can just tell if its genuine.

 

It's possible for a partner to 'masturbate to you' (or just to the fetishes that you're wearing) while stimulating you, without you touching their genitalia. Yes, that sounds weird

 

I guess I should have formulated the poll a bit differently, to include all cases when one doesn't touch the partner's genitalia during sex. But idk what %s of gays/lesbians aren't repulsed by seeing partners' vulvas/penises in action.

[Cassiopeia]

11 hours ago, aroMa(n)tisse said:

 

It's possible for a partner to 'masturbate to you' (or just to the fetishes that you're wearing) while stimulating you, without you touching their genitalia. Yes, that sounds weird

Still triggering and yes, awkward. I'm really uncomfortable whit the whole concept tbh

Quote

I guess I should have formulated the poll a bit differently, to include all cases when one doesn't touch the partner's genitalia during sex. But idk what %s of gays/lesbians aren't repulsed by seeing partners' vulvas/penises in action.

I was under the impression that's more like a sex repulsed ace thing.

 

 

[paporomantic]

4 hours ago, Cassiopeia said:

I was under the impression that's more like a sex repulsed ace thing.

 

So was I, thanks for reassuring that it's not a common problem in all kinds of sexuals! 

[Cassiopeia]

@aroMa(n)tisse nah, I was referring to your experiences being an ace thing. (Maybe allos with some sort of trauma have similar, but people who are into sex generally do like to see that kinda thing in a sexual situation)

[omitef]

On 6/15/2016 at 0:38 PM, Rising Sun said:

@omitef Society is unfair, yes. But since when can we change what turns us on ? If you can, you can change your sexual orientation. Studies have shown that you can't. You can't choose what turns you on. That's unfair, yes, but culture and society can change. What turns us on is located deep in our synapses rather than in our culture, and unless if in the far future, devices are made to rebuild our whole neuronal network, we have no way to control that. For example, i can't help it if i don't find boobs especially attractive, and no amount of self-convincing will start to make me think "yay boobs, I love boobs !". Seriously, you can do that ? Who can do that, actually ?

Yes, attraction is biological. But biology is influenced by your surroundings (otherwise epigenetics would not be a thing). Culture does significantly play a role in determining what you're attracted to. Again, we live in a transphobic society, meaning that from birth, we're conditioned to believe that boobs and vagina = woman, and dick = man. And we grow up thinking that lesbian = likes vaginas and gay = likes dicks. Preferences for certain genitalia on certain genders don't arise in a vacuum--they arise from years of social conditioning that's designed to exclude those who aren't cis. So while you can't convince yourself to like boobs, I'd ask, what would it mean to you if you met someone who had the genitals you preferred, but were not the gender you preferred? Which brings me to the question, what constitutes sexual orientation to you? Is sexual orientation attraction to gender, or attraction to appearance? Or something else entirely?

 

On 6/15/2016 at 0:38 PM, Rising Sun said:

@omitef 

And i never said that trans people are less sexually desirable, objectively. I just said that you can't choose others' personal preferences. And others have rejected me several times, for physical appearance reasons and because of my neurological disorder. Does it feel unfair, absolutely. But I've accepted the fact that for many people, I'm not attractive and I'll never be (and largely because I don't send them the attractive feminine vibes they require in order to feel attracted ; they do feel that there is something unusual with me, they told me about it many times, and i have no reason to feel angry at them for not being attracted to that). I don't feel entitled in changing other people's attraction feelings. Others have no right to hate you for what you are. But they have no obligation to find you attractive either, because that's entitlement, and entitlement is coercitive and not OK. If there is something I'm already happy with, it's when somebody can't be attracted to me but they still love me all the same, platonically, yes, but they love me all the same ; this matters a lot to me. It can be frustrating, but I refuse forcing someone to be attracted to me, that's not OK at all.

 

You're right. You can't choose others' personal preferences. But you can choose whether or not to challenge them for having problematic preferences, and ask them to explain why they think that those preferences are okay. To be honest, if someone rejected me because I'm trans, I'd be hurt, but then I'd think--gee, why would I want you to be attracted to me? Why would I want someone who can't see me for who I am, beyond my transgender identity? 

 

Also, it's one thing to say that people *should* be attracted to you. It's another to say that people should just automatically rule you out as a sexual/romantic partner without even really knowing who you are in the first place. I'm not saying that I'm entitled to affection from anybody--I'm saying that people shouldn't reduce to me to only a single part, and I'm saying people should examine the history of prejudice behind a thinking process that seems perfectly natural and harmless to them.