Hair

[Michelle G]

yikes!! I finally had a chance to look around in there

a couple of helpfull tips, other than that not much I didnt already know

[Naturally Blonde]

I always wondered, since last time I saw that site posted, is that a joke?

Totally pandering to an ->-bleeped-<- audience and milking that cash cow. I'm sorry but almost every article on that site is "how to appear more feminine/sexy" (because you're not) and the comments are full of people posting fetish pictures of themselves.

http://feminizationsecrets.com/how-to-look-hot-in-your-femme-photos/comment-page-3/#comments

Honestly go look at these comments and tell me ->-bleeped-<- doesn't exist. This is what people think MTFs are all like and that's an image that bugs me.

I agree with you. It's not my kind of forum going by the link.  It is probably more for the transveststite / fetish scene?

[Ms. OBrien CVT]

I agree with you. It's not my kind of forum going by the link.  It is probably more for the transveststite / fetish scene?

Actually many are cross-dressers, but most are Transsexuals.  And that is really who Lucille aimed the site at.  Sadly many CD also now go to her site.

[Annah]

Well, they post unsolicited pictures of themselves in lingerie and fetish gear for a general audience

Sorry, a spade is a spade. Pretty much the definition of ->-bleeped-<-.

OH DARN THOSE Cosmopolitan Magazine Models and their ->-bleeped-<-ness!!!!

[tekla]

Sadly many CD also now go to her site.

Isn't a statement like that against our rules here?  Isn't that exactly the kind of 'trans elitism' that have been causing so many people to leave?

[Ms. OBrien CVT]

No.  but some of the posted photos are not transwomen.  This I know.

But the site has been a godsend to a lot of girls.

[Joeyboo~ :3]

OH DARN THOSE Cosmopolitan Magazine Models and their ->-bleeped-<-ness!!!!

One's sexy, the other is horrifying.

No wonder straight men were afraid of me.
All they could think of when they imagined sleeping with me were old men in lingerie with blank/creepy expressions on their faces.

[MacKenzie]

No wonder straight men were afraid of me.
All they could think of when they imagined sleeping with me were old men in lingerie with blank/creepy expressions on their faces.

  That or it was the hair above your lip Joey  J/K lol. Yeah ik those old men in drag creeped me out big time. 

[Alainaluvsu]

  That or it was the hair above your lip Joey  J/K lol. Yeah ik those old men in drag creeped me out big time. 

What really creeped me out what that 50,60,70 idk how old whatever you call him / her (idk the gender they ID as) doing an upskirt shot trying to show off legs. Gross.

[spacial]

I agree to an extend with you Mrs. OBrien. (Dear Janet  ).

I wonder if we should welcome the interest though. It may seem frivolous and that frivolity might be distracting, especially for those who struggle so much, but the spread of effeminate expression in the general populace can only make things easier for those of us who make the brave step forward.

Just a thought.

[pretty]

OH DARN THOSE Cosmopolitan Magazine Models and their ->-bleeped-<-ness!!!!

Yea, you just go ahead and let me know when those models post pics of themselves for no remuneration and without being asked to or prompted to, in gross lingerie on a public online article about food. Probably the same day hell freezes over.



Do you read any makeup or hair sites? A lot of those sites allow comments with pictures. Yet--and I'm really gonna shock you here--I have never seen a single one of those women post sexualized photos in those comments. A lot of women do tons of makeup and hair videos on youtube, and I'm gonna surprise you again--they never wear lingerie. The "oh but cis women are ->-bleeped-<- too" theory is like a running joke, everybody can actually tell there's a difference.

[Annah]

->-bleeped-<- is an idiotic idea conjured up by an old therapist and supported by a doctor who got her medical license stripped away for staring at patient's vaginas and getting a thrill from it.

So if you wanna believe in a silly idea go right ahead. Afterall, there are those who believe in Unicorns with rainbow smiles.

[Alainaluvsu]

Do you read any makeup or hair sites? A lot of those sites allow comments with pictures. Yet--and I'm really gonna shock you here--I have never seen a single one of those women post sexualized photos in those comments. A lot of women do tons of makeup and hair videos on youtube, and I'm gonna surprise you again--they never wear lingerie. The "oh but cis women are ->-bleeped-<- too" theory is like a running joke, everybody can actually tell there's a difference.

Love this.

IDK anything about ->-bleeped-<- or whatever. But if anybody gets a sexual thrill out of being the other gender, but doesn't necessarily wanna be the other gender for any other reason... that's their business IDC and I'm not going to judge anybody for it. But I'll damn sure get catty over someone posting photos of themselves in places where they don't belong. I'd be just as catty, if not more, to a cis girl that did that stuff. But I will say, the photos on that site do make me facepalmsigh and they make me worry that transsexuals (the ones that feel fully in their hearts that they're female 100% of the day) are gonna be lumped in with that behavior like we all are that way.

[Annah]

I see your point, but ->-bleeped-<- isn't that. ->-bleeped-<- is a way to devalue transsexuals....especially transsexual lesbians as Blanchard, the creator of the ->-bleeped-<- foolishness, states that TG lesbians suffer from ->-bleeped-<- because they are really turned on with the fact that they can think they are a woman making love to a woman.

It's very condemning and outdated.

If people get a sexual thrill from crossdressing...that's called a fetish. Not ->-bleeped-<-. People love to merge the two meanings without fully looking into the definition of ->-bleeped-<- or understanding it.

[MacKenzie]

Afterall, there are those who believe in Unicorns with rainbow smiles.

  HEY!! 

[pretty]

I see your point, but ->-bleeped-<- isn't that. ->-bleeped-<- is a way to devalue transsexuals....especially transsexual lesbians as Blanchard, the creator of the ->-bleeped-<- foolishness, states that TG lesbians suffer from ->-bleeped-<- because they are really turned on with the fact that they can think they are a woman making love to a woman.

It's very condemning and outdated.

If people get a sexual thrill from crossdressing...that's called a fetish. Not ->-bleeped-<-. People love to merge the two meanings without fully looking into the definition of ->-bleeped-<- or understanding it.

Honestly, you guys all put too much care into the wording. IDC what you call it, ->-bleeped-<-, CD, TV, fetishism. Make a new term if you like.

Just don't call it the same thing you call it when someone with a woman's personality is born in a man's body.

That's not even elitism. It's just accuracy. They are not the same thing, they are nothing alike and they shouldn't be lumped in together under one term as if they are.

[Jeneva]

That's not even elitism. It's just accuracy. They are not the same thing, they are nothing alike and they shouldn't be lumped in together under one term as if they are.

they make me worry that transsexuals (the ones that feel fully in their hearts that they're female 100% of the day) are gonna be lumped in with that behavior like we all are that way.

Who defines who fits under what term?  You?  The author of the theory?  Or perhaps maybe the individual?  IT IS elitism, you are saying that I am better than them and they will drag me down.

Don't these statements boil down to I am better from them?

Afterall, there are those who believe in Unicorns with rainbow smiles.

Oh, come on now, everyone KNOWS that Unicorns have pearly white smiles and the rainbows trail behind them when they fly.




And here I swore I wouldn't tilt at windmills anymore. 

[MacKenzie]

Just don't call it the same thing you call it when someone with a woman's personality is born in a man's body.

That's not even elitism.

According to the majority of members here if you believe in ->-bleeped-<- you're an elitist ->-bleeped-<-r then thou transsexual.

I can't understand why people on here even after seeing all the evidence STILL will not admit that ->-bleeped-<- is real and there are dozens upon dozens of these people on the net that admit to being sexually attracted to themselves as women.

I agree with Pretty, they're not the same thing and shouldn't be lumped together.
   

[Jeneva]

I can't understand why people on here even after seeing all the evidence STILL will not admit that ->-bleeped-<- is real and there are dozens upon dozens of these people on the net that admit to being sexually attracted to themselves as women.

Because ->-bleeped-<- is part of an either/or theory.  If we support ->-bleeped-<- then we also support the dichotomy of ->-bleeped-<-/HSTS.  According to those theories EVERYONE that is trans is one of the two.

And it isn't just ->-bleeped-<- that is insulting because HomoSexual TransSexuals are really just gay men that transition to get men easier.

Even the narratives are especially restrictive.  Many of us fit parts of BOTH and neither fits many people exactly right.

[MacKenzie]

Because ->-bleeped-<- is part of an either/or theory.  If we support ->-bleeped-<- then we also support the dichotomy of ->-bleeped-<-/HSTS.  According to those theories EVERYONE that is trans is one of the two.

And it isn't just ->-bleeped-<- that is insulting because HomoSexual TransSexuals are really just gay men that transition to get men easier.

Even the narratives are especially restrictive.  Many of us fit parts of BOTH and neither fits many people exactly right.

That's Bailey's spin on Blanchard's original theory which Blanchard himself doesn't support.