Found this which has some interesting tips for us.
Worth a look.
http://feminizationsecrets.com/transgender-hairstyle-mistakes/
WOW! thanx!
That site is now added to my "favorites" :)
gonna spend some time there later reading up on things!
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.
Quote from: pretty on April 07, 2012, 06:41:37 PM
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.
So based on the pictures you have judged these people to be ->-bleeped-<- and NOT real transsexuals like you are?
Nice!
Quote from: Jeneva on April 07, 2012, 06:52:59 PM
So based on the pictures you have judged these people to be ->-bleeped-<- and NOT real transsexuals like you are?
Nice!
Well, they post unsolicited pictures of themselves in lingerie and fetish gear for a general audience even on completely unrelated articles. Like "feminizing foods".
Sorry, a spade is a spade. Pretty much the definition of ->-bleeped-<-.
Quote from: pretty on April 07, 2012, 06:59:10 PM
Well, they post unsolicited pictures of themselves in lingerie and fetish gear for a general audience even on completely unrelated articles. Like "feminizing foods".
Sorry, a spade is a spade. Pretty much the definition of ->-bleeped-<-.
So you are saying that someone with "->-bleeped-<-" is not a transsexual?
You are aware that the definition of ->-bleeped-<-/HSTS says that anyone who is not straight is ->-bleeped-<-. So you have just told half the board that they are not women and only fetishist, just like those people in those pictures on that site.
Quote from: Jeneva on April 07, 2012, 07:04:07 PM
So you are saying that someone with "->-bleeped-<-" is not a transsexual?
You are aware that the definition of ->-bleeped-<-/HSTS says that anyone who is not straight is ->-bleeped-<-. So you have just told half the board that they are not women and only fetishist, just like those people in those pictures on that site.
Not calling anyone anything except the people posting naked or half-naked pics that nobody asked for and for no reason on that site.
Even if the ->-bleeped-<- definition doesn't apply to everyone, those people fit it perfectly and I find it pretty offensive to have people with serious life issues related to their transition lumped in with 50-something men parading around their homes in cheap lingerie for anyone who will bat an eye, willingly or not.
So some animals are more equal than others? Is that what you are saying?
It's not nice to try to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
:police:
Alright, let's go back to the original topic: Hair.
Let's end the judgements, futile arguments, and personal attacks.
Quote from: tekla on April 07, 2012, 07:22:07 PM
It's not nice to try to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
>:-)
Quote
INIGO: I'm going to do him left-handed.
VIZZINI: You KNOW what a hurry we're in!
INIGO: Eh- it's the only way I can be satisfied. If I use my right... over
too quickly.
Thank you for that post. I needed a good laugh tonight after the battle over easter egg coloring. Somehow even though both colored 18 eggs each, the fact our son (12) bumped our daughter (8 - today) was a serious screaming bout because "HE RUINED HER EGG!!!!" 1 egg out of the 18 :-\
Quote from: pretty on April 07, 2012, 06:41:37 PM
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.
Lol This so much. xD
Quote from: pretty on April 07, 2012, 06:41:37 PM
http://feminizationsecrets.com/how-to-look-hot-in-your-femme-photos/comment-page-3/#comments
Oh, no ma'am...
*gags*
I know Lucille and she has help a lot of girls. And personal if she make a buck or two, that is fine with me.
Quote from: JoeyD on April 07, 2012, 07:55:32 PM
Oh, no ma'am...
*gags*
Yeah... pretty distasteful... cis or not.
thanks for this. I am trying to take care of my hair,
Meh. :-\
->-bleeped-<- aside, there were a few useful tips. Although at this moment, my hair is at the Medusa stage - where everytime I wake up it looks like a bunch of snakes with minds of their own...and on the bad days has probably turned a few people into stone with its hideousness! :P
Quote from: Bexi on April 08, 2012, 04:51:54 PM
->-bleeped-<- aside, there were a few useful tips.
Yeah for someone just starting transition it's pretty helpful but I wouldn't buy anything from there.
Just steer clear of the weirdo's dressing half nude at the bottom of the screen and you'll be fine. :D
Quote from: MacKenzie on April 08, 2012, 05:05:11 PM
Yeah for someone just starting transition it's pretty helpful but I wouldn't buy anything from there.
Just steer clear of the weirdo's dressing half nude at the bottom of the screen and you'll be fine. :D
Haha true - just because im new to this, doesn't mean i'll fall for any of their more obvious 'traps'! Lol and those half-nudes were just creepy! :laugh:
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
Quote from: pretty on April 07, 2012, 06:41:37 PM
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?
Quote from: Naturally Blonde on April 09, 2012, 08:43:00 AM
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.
Quote from: pretty on April 07, 2012, 06:59:10 PM
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!!!!
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?
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.
Quote from: Annah on April 09, 2012, 08:32:05 PM
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.
Quote from: JoeyD on April 09, 2012, 09:04:00 PM
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 :eusa_whistle: J/K lol. Yeah ik those old men in drag creeped me out big time. :icon_yikes:
Quote from: MacKenzie on April 09, 2012, 10:02:30 PM
That or it was the hair above your lip Joey :eusa_whistle: J/K lol. Yeah ik those old men in drag creeped me out big time. :icon_yikes:
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.
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.
Quote from: Annah on April 09, 2012, 08:32:05 PM
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.
:D
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.
->-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.
Quote from: pretty on April 10, 2012, 03:50:44 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Annah on April 10, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
Afterall, there are those who believe in Unicorns with rainbow smiles.
HEY!! :eusa_shhh:
Quote from: Annah on April 10, 2012, 04:47:58 PM
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.
Quote from: pretty on April 10, 2012, 05:57:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Alainaluvsu on April 10, 2012, 04:37:20 PM
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?
Quote from: Annah on April 10, 2012, 04:23:08 PM
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.
;D
And here I swore I wouldn't tilt at windmills anymore. ::)
Quote from: pretty on April 10, 2012, 05:57:11 PM
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.
Quote from: MacKenzie on April 10, 2012, 06:23:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Jeneva on April 10, 2012, 06:39:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Jeneva on April 10, 2012, 06:11:49 PM
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?
My bad. I guess I should be okay with being perceived as the same type of people as the ones that are showing off their nasty 60 year old legs and crotch while wearing a dress. Because you know, we are all the same.
Transsexuals are already a running joke. It's kind of like when blondes get lumped into the same stereotype of being an air headed bimbo when they see a video of something stupid they've done; another blonde that is trying to fight the stereotype may think "Ummm... don't lump me in with that idiot, she's killing us!"
Tons of people lump transsexuality into some sexual need anyways. When I came out to my brother, he said "You can be gay without dressing up like a girl." ... NSS .. (No s* sherlock).
Quote from: pretty on April 10, 2012, 05:57:11 PM
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.
And this is why you have no idea what you're talking when it comes to ->-bleeped-<-.
Crossdressing Fetish is NOT ->-bleeped-<-. You assume one definition fits ->-bleeped-<- to how you see it.
That's like saying someone with a speech impediment is mentally retarded.
You really need to learn definitions of conditions that have been used to attack transgender people rather than throwing out the word like you know its meaning.
Quote from: MacKenzie on April 10, 2012, 06:23:30 PM
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.
If you want to lower yourself on a level in which transsexual lesbians are regarded as nothing more than fetishistic masturbators who think they are a girl but really not then you be my guest.
I wont claim it. Never will.
Quote from: Jeneva on April 10, 2012, 06:11:49 PM
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?
No, it's an assessment of the urgency and seriousness of the problem. A fetish is a fetish, people can take care of it like a fetish and it should be treated as one.
Transsexualism is a serious problem for the people it affects. It causes maladaptive behaviors and development from a young age when there is not a supportive environment, as there often is not.
Quote from: Annah on April 10, 2012, 07:37:08 PM
If you want to lower yourself on a level in which transsexual lesbians are regarded as nothing more than fetishistic masturbators who think they are a girl but really not then you be my guest.
I wont claim it. Never will.
And I won't accept being labeled as a fetishistic simply because I am attracted to women (I know you aren't Annah, I'm just saying that I agree and refuse to accept that label).
The funny part is except for my orientation I fit fairly well into the HSTS category. Actually if you had asked almost any of my friends from high school, college, or even grad school they would have told you I was a gay man. My grandparents (that raised us and adopted us (but only for the SSA money)) were certain I was gay (of course I also came out to them at 4-5 and was quickly taught that it was better to never talk about that [or else...]). My aunt introduced me to Shannon because she figured that Shannon would make a good beard and maybe she would be butch enough to interest me. My middle and high school best friend was certain I was gay and once his girlfriend he was living with wanted me to go back into her bedroom and look through her PlayGirls with her. When we lived away from east TN with my biofather there was a boy at school that was convinced he was my boyfriend. He actually helped me catch butterflies all day one Saturday for a science project. When he dropped me off my biofather stepped out and was ready to kill him because he thought we were going to kiss.
But you know what... I'm not a gay man nor a straight woman because men have NEVER interested me sexually. Even after 2+ years of T blockers and over a year of E I still am not interested in men. I am female and have known that since very early. Actually isn't there yet another hole in the theories here? Gender identity is supposed to be fixed at 4-5 and sexuality isn't usually realized until puberty.
Added after I wrote the above because pretty posted again.
Quote from: pretty on April 10, 2012, 07:52:59 PM
No, it's an assessment of the urgency and seriousness of the problem. A fetish is a fetish, people can take care of it like a fetish and it should be treated as one.
Transsexualism is a serious problem for the people it affects. It causes maladaptive behaviors and development from a young age when there is not a supportive environment, as there often is not.
But pretty as long as you support ->-bleeped-<- you are saying that I'm not a transsexual. You cannot support ->-bleeped-<- without supporting the dichotomy. And according to those rules I am ->-bleeped-<- also. Even if you pick a new word instead of ->-bleeped-<-, still you have to answer who decides and what criteria they use. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I invite you to look at my past posts and see if you can find anything to justify denying me transition. I also have a link to our family farm website on my profile (the globe under my avatar). Before someone starts the whole but you avatar isn't you. My avatar is what it is because it has special meaning to me. On our site and here are plenty of pictures. I actually wrote up my entire FFS experience and you can see the whole progress. I post with my full real legal first name because I belief that stealth is an illusion and the entire community needs some of us to out ourselves so that the public understands. It really bothers me to see our own community attack itself. As Annah said the ->-bleeped-<- diagnosis is EXCEPTIONALLY offensive to lesbian transwomen because it denies our very existence and self identity.
You can be 50, 60, 70, look hideous in lingerie and still expect full support here. To not be supportive of people runs counter to this sites mission. Hugs, Devlyn
Quote from: Devlyn on April 10, 2012, 08:46:38 PM
You can be 50, 60, 70, look hideous in lingerie and still expect full support here. To not be supportive of people runs counter to this sites mission. Hugs, Devlyn
I'll be sure to remember that in the threads when people want honesty. When they want honesty, we're suppose to be supportive, not truthful.
:police:
Actually, it is quite possible to be both honest and supportive at the same time. It doesn't even take all that much effort.
Let's bring some civility back to this thread, please. And, let's return to the topic: Hair.
Quote from: Jeneva on April 10, 2012, 08:26:51 PM
And I won't accept being labeled as a fetishistic simply because I am attracted to women (I know you aren't Annah, I'm just saying that I agree and refuse to accept that label).
The funny part is except for my orientation I fit fairly well into the HSTS category. Actually if you had asked almost any of my friends from high school, college, or even grad school they would have told you I was a gay man. My grandparents (that raised us and adopted us (but only for the SSA money)) were certain I was gay (of course I also came out to them at 4-5 and was quickly taught that it was better to never talk about that [or else...]). My aunt introduced me to Shannon because she figured that Shannon would make a good beard and maybe she would be butch enough to interest me. My middle and high school best friend was certain I was gay and once his girlfriend he was living with wanted me to go back into her bedroom and look through her PlayGirls with her. When we lived away from east TN with my biofather there was a boy at school that was convinced he was my boyfriend. He actually helped me catch butterflies all day one Saturday for a science project. When he dropped me off my biofather stepped out and was ready to kill him because he thought we were going to kiss.
But you know what... I'm not a gay man nor a straight woman because men have NEVER interested me sexually. Even after 2+ years of T blockers and over a year of E I still am not interested in men. I am female and have known that since very early. Actually isn't there yet another hole in the theories here? Gender identity is supposed to be fixed at 4-5 and sexuality isn't usually realized until puberty.
Added after I wrote the above because pretty posted again.But pretty as long as you support ->-bleeped-<- you are saying that I'm not a transsexual. You cannot support ->-bleeped-<- without supporting the dichotomy. And according to those rules I am ->-bleeped-<- also. Even if you pick a new word instead of ->-bleeped-<-, still you have to answer who decides and what criteria they use. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I invite you to look at my past posts and see if you can find anything to justify denying me transition. I also have a link to our family farm website on my profile (the globe under my avatar). Before someone starts the whole but you avatar isn't you. My avatar is what it is because it has special meaning to me. On our site and here are plenty of pictures. I actually wrote up my entire FFS experience and you can see the whole progress. I post with my full real legal first name because I belief that stealth is an illusion and the entire community needs some of us to out ourselves so that the public understands. It really bothers me to see our own community attack itself. As Annah said the ->-bleeped-<- diagnosis is EXCEPTIONALLY offensive to lesbian transwomen because it denies our very existence and self identity.
Well, ya know, like I said, idc about the ->-bleeped-<- theory. And I don't care what you call it. Call it rainbow showers of unicorn dust. Whatever.
I don't know when this became a fetish community, so personally I don't think I'm attacking members of this community. I just think there should be sufficient distance between transsexualism and exhibitionism with a CD twist. The latter should stay in the fetish community because it is a fetish.
Topic locked.
Quote from: Susan on July 27, 2006, 07:45:44 PM
15. Items under discussion shall be confined to the subject matter at hand, members shall avoid taking the other users posts personally, and/or posting anything that can reasonably be construed as a personal attack.