I was having a discussion a while back with other trans people, and one of the comments was, "I would never date someone who was interested in me because I'm trans." And I thought, "Why not?" Personally - and I admit I'm early in transition, so my opinion my very well change - but personally, I would find it comforting knowing that my significant other liked the fact that I'm trans. It would stop that soul-eating paranoia about whether he's really disappointed that I don't have a willy, but is just too polite to say so. Besides, is an attraction to the non-gender-binary so different to, say, my attraction to baby-faced men? Certainly, being baby-faced isn't my #1 criteria in a guy for a relationship. But, dang, I find it hot.
So, up for discussion: What's so bad about ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-s? Is being attracted to trans people any different from being attracted to other physical traits? Is there a difference between "->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-" and "Trans Admirer"? I'm curious to hear people's views.
If its purely a sexual thing for them then I have no interest in them. But if they are genuinely attracted to transpeople because of the personality and open mindedness than sure, why not. To me it would be similar to a person that prefers to date people of one specific race over another. Its just what they like.
This site has a wonderful feature that allows one to search by a particular word. Plug in ->-bleeped-<- and you will be able to read on this topic and the definition of a ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<- and why they are viewed as being trouble.
Quote from: Syne on May 07, 2009, 06:50:48 AM
This site has a wonderful feature that allows one to search by a particular word. Plug in ->-bleeped-<- and you will be able to read on this topic and the definition of a ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<- and why they are viewed as being trouble.
Yes. But the point was to start a discussion. :rolleyes:
There's a phrase within the bdsm community that's shortened to "NMKBYKIOK" or just "NMK" what it stands for is "not my kink but your kink is okay". I honestly believe that the kink is okay, ->-bleeped-<-s in and of themselves are not "bad", however, if they lie about their intentions they are dishonest, manipulative, and abuse the trust of those that they pray on, And that is bad.
The ->-bleeped-<- is neutral, their actions however, can be very bad.
All too often I've seen people who've had their hearts broken by "->-bleeped-<-s" who only admired trans (mostly MTF's) because of their "little something extra". And once the trans person had their operation, then the ->-bleeped-<- lost interest and moved on.
In other words, the ->-bleeped-<- was too shicketchit to admit that they were gay and used the trans person to show the world that they had a hetero relationship but in the bedroom could participate in all their gay fantasies.
If a person loves a person it should be regardless of their physical attributes. Gay, straight, trans, should not make a difference. And if that is what occurs then I have no problem with it, however, more often than we would like, it does not.
-Sandy
->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-s are into it for the sex.( I think) I agree with what Sandy said. It is a way of having gay sex when the rest of the world thinks you are hetero. I myself am into women and if that woman I might be falling in love with is trans then I would have some things to get used to till she could have surgery. Yes, I think going out with a ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<- would be a bad move . One could find themself with a broken hart after surgey.
Well, yes, there are ->-bleeped-<-s specifically interested in pre-op MTF's.
I've never particularly understood that one as MTF's on hormones are not known for male potency.
There are some ->-bleeped-<-s who are interested in post-op MTF's.
I believe that they maintain that the something "extra" in this case is personality.
Many MTF's are more feminine than the average woman on the street.
My personal take is that "->-bleeped-<-s" are not inherently evil, bad, disgraceful or any more manipulative than any other human being. In point of fact I think we all too often are willing to forget just how any confidence game works: The shill wants to believe they can "win" the game.
The feelings of being useless and left alone are quite harsh on any person. But the TS who "falls" for a "->-bleeped-<-" is more than complicit in her own pain when he leaves after she has surgery. (Pronouns may be generalized here I use them for brevity and clarity rather than for someone's notion of "inclusiveness.")
I have seen the desperation of people (MTFs) who so very badly wish to "be seen as women" that they accept even slurs and degrading behavior toward them as "proof that I'm a woman." That is terribly sad, I think. But, the desire overrides any sense that what she is doing is demeaning herself. OK, I imagine it ain't joyous to look like Karl Malden in a dress and when someone views you as "a woman" perhaps the previous pain can be a spur to losing all sense of one's self-dignity and allowing the other to help ya "feel better."
Well, most actions have "stop" buttons and the way I have seen it for the past ten or twelve years is that many MTFs appear to give the TS a pass on complicity, blaming instead the "heartless" and "manipulative" ->-bleeped-<-. "Manipulation" is a two-way street and the woman in question needs to realize just how deeply bereft of self-respect she must be to fall for particular behaviors brought to her in an effort to get the purveyor what he wants: sex with something extra as Sandy said.
We ignore what she's after and how she goes about doing it. Which is just as manipulative as anything he does. It's how human interaction works. Both people are in it for themselves. An MTF TS isn't some "innocent tool" being used by someone else. She is using him as well as being used.
Get used to that idea and get over yourself.
Relationships break-up over all sorts of things. "True love" is very hard work and anyone who thinks they are getting some prince who "loves me for who I am" is generally going to be totally disappointed as she wanders around "->-bleeped-<- bars" and Craigslist hoping she can be "validated."
Your "realness" originates from inside you, not in the way other people "see" you and for years I have watched and heard MTFs ignore that basic fact.
If ya have "->-bleeped-<--->-bleeped-<-s" then you also have "desperate ->-bleeped-<-s" who have no clue that they can validate themselves and you have an entire community who are all too often complicit in demonizing others because their sisters lack any and all sense of themselves and their lives. O Puh-leez!
Let's discuss "->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-s." :)
Nichole
I am on a couple of sites for TS/TG, and most are looking for relationships based on sex. And you would not believe how many t-girls are playing into it. But so are most of the dating sites.
Face it, that is what bioguys want. They don't seem to want a truly deeper relationship. I am about to drop out of all the sites I am in, three in all, and just be celibate. And with the Zapada case, one can not be too careful.
Janet
Quote from: Janet Lynn on May 07, 2009, 09:28:29 AM
I am on a couple of sites for TS/TG, and most are looking for relationships based on sex. And you would not believe how many t-girls are playing into it. But so are most of the dating sites.
Face it, that is what bioguys want. They don't seem to want a truly deeper relationship. I am about to drop out of all the sites I am in, three in all, and just be celibate. And with the Zapada case, one can not be too careful.
Janet
So, is anyone thinking that "dating sites" are exclusively there to match people for a "lifetime of commitment to one another?" :laugh: O, puh-leez again. Most of it is strictly about s-e-x and not feeling alone.
Actually meeting someone and falling in love with them and being fallen in love with can, and has for years, happen in the context of one's life. If I think I am meeting my "true love" on a dating site or in a bar or poolhall or at a corner of the Tenderloin as he pulls up in his Cadillac and says "Hey, baby, how much?" is deluded as deluded can be.
D-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-i-o-n. There's the kernel.
Nichole
if that's what they find attractive in a person, then why should it matter? as long as they are in it for love.
Exactly what I beginning to discovered. Why am I on these site? To meet men? Am I that desperate? Maybe. I am definitely lonely. Validation. Probably. It is one thing for members of our community to say "You pass" and another for the rest of the world to say it.
But validation must come from within. And that the hardest thing to achieve, but day by day it gets better. I am even getting to the point of dropping the "Trans".
But that will change one day. Just as SRS will. Everything in due time. It took me 25 years from the first time I tried to transition till now. It wasn't time then, but it is now.
Love will come into my life. Someone will walk into it. And they might already be here.
If one looks at the word "->-bleeped-<-" one could assume that it is short for ->-bleeped-<- therefor a ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<- or does the term refer to all those who identify under the "T*" umbrella?
As for the dating sites and the risks associated... Well I've had three relationships with men who I met online. The first two didn't do it for me but so far the third man that I met is proving to be my soul mate and true love, he's wonderful. Was I desperate? - NO. Was I lonely? - Certainly, who isn't from time to time. There's nothing wrong with dating sites as long as a person is sensible and keeps their eye's open.
-={LR}=-
If a person loves a person it should be regardless of their physical attributes.
as long as they are in it for love
And I want a pony.
I'm shocked that men (apparently no one here has ever watched Sex in the City) are out for just sex. Boy, you could knock me over with a feather. I can not imagine any such thing. Who knew?
Isn't there a thread running about all the wonderful things about MtFs? Could it be that the ->-bleeped-<-s are just out for some of that goodness in their life? OK, I didn't think so either - but it could happen.
It takes two to tango as they say, one to delude, and one who wants to be deluded. 'Twas ever thus.
Quote from: tekla on May 07, 2009, 12:28:26 PM
If a person loves a person it should be regardless of their physical attributes.
as long as they are in it for love
And I want a pony.
I'm shocked that men (apparently no one here has ever watched Sex in the City) are out for just sex. Boy, you could knock me over with a feather. I can not imagine any such thing. Who knew?
Isn't there a thread running about all the wonderful things about MtFs? Could it be that the ->-bleeped-<-s are just out for some of that goodness in their life? OK, I didn't think so either - but it could happen.
It takes two to tango as they say, one to delude, and one who wants to be deluded. 'Twas ever thus.
I wasn't alluding to the way it
is. But to the way it
should be.
Just as there
should be world peace. But like my statement above it is not the way it
is.
-Sandy
Why should it be that way? What's wrong with sex qua sex? What's wrong with sex for the sake of sex? Why must it always be about 'love'? People who choose that route are free to do so, and I suppose that life is a minefield for those looking for love, but it's always been that way.
Quote from: Sandy on May 07, 2009, 12:51:12 PM
I wasn't alluding to the way it is. But to the way it should be.
Just as there should be world peace. But like my statement above it is not the way it is.
-Sandy
Yep, the way it should be. Like the guy said, "I want a pony."
And I am well aware that some people do just fine through internet meets and finding "soul mates" that way. But, do the vast majority of people? And did anyone ever manage to have a soul mate who lives and remains 3000 or 300 or even 30 miles away througout the duration of the relationship?
John Prine, Donald and Lydia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sw7jdsB0jA#lq-hq)
:laugh: I'm sure someone may chime in with an "I did." But I also know that tekla is in a long-term relationship (for a decade or more) with a lovely woman and they also met through the netz.
But they didn't make the relationship last 10 years through the netz, did they?
Single examples neither prove a point nor erase the amount of self-inflicted pain that any number of transsexual women bring on themselves by having a desire to "be loved" and later find out that what's loved is the pre-op state they were in.
How many who decide to wait to date until after surgery know they aren't being loved for the ways they were conditioned to behave as men prior to transition? Or due to their "being more feminine than real women?" Or that they are computer engineers or have blonde hair, or large arms or well-turned legs or bubble-butts or skinny-butts?
Finally, is anyone who dates "pre-op" a "->-bleeped-<-"
a priori? Puh-leez. May not be my way of doing things but it hardly is a "marker" for being a ->-bleeped-<-. :laugh:
The cautionary tale is to not fool one's self and manage to think that a date or sex or "being told I am seen as a woman" means that you are now officially "a woman." To allow your entire sense of self and self-efficacy to be only dependant on what sort of person another "sees me as" is just plain self-defeating.
Take some time to realize yourself. If you do that while dating, at your job, through your church or whatever is fine.
But, the point remains, "->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-s" are playing a game that is indulged in by both sides for reasons of their own. There's nothing inherently evil, manipulative or dishonest in that provided that you understand that on both sides the game is being played. I mean heck, how does that differ in any way from any courtship ritual?
The thought that there is some pure and pristine Platonic ideal that everyone should find in their partner may be a nice thought, but it really doesn't enter much into anyone's reality. Does it?
Nichole
tekla approves of anything that uses John Prine to prove a point.
And, FTR, we didn't meet on a dating site, we met on a board just like this one, where among the people I so upset that their heads exploded, one person kind of liked it.
Quote from: tekla on May 07, 2009, 01:35:49 PM
And, FTR, we didn't meet on a dating site, we met on a board just like this one, where among the people I so upset that their heads exploded, one person kind of liked it.
And, FTR, she showed a lot of good sense in seeing that, seems to me. Yep, you do have this thing about exploding heads doncha, Kat? :laugh: Some of us just manage to find ways to stop the head exploding after awhile and wind up liking you.
She's a smart woman. :)
N~
you do have this thing about exploding heads doncha, Kat?
Yeah, the movie Scanners ruined my life.
Quote from: tekla on May 07, 2009, 12:57:31 PM
What's wrong with sex qua sex? What's wrong with sex for the sake of sex? Why must it always be about 'love'?
Nothing is wrong with sex for the sake of sex (far from it!!)
as long as both parties agree!What I was, I think, getting at and to what Nichole clarified, is that in the ->-bleeped-<-/trans relationship, either the ->-bleeped-<- lied, or the trans only heard what they wanted to hear, and that's how hearts get broken.
-Sandy
Post Merge: May 07, 2009, 02:01:07 PM
Quote from: tekla on May 07, 2009, 01:45:49 PM
you do have this thing about exploding heads doncha, Kat?
Yeah, the movie Scanners ruined my life.
You *have* raised to the level of an art form, haven't you Kat? :D
Quote from: Nichole on May 07, 2009, 01:29:02 PM
:laugh: I'm sure someone may chime in with an "I did."
uh... :embarrassed:
Quote from: FairyGirl on May 07, 2009, 02:05:47 PM
uh... :embarrassed:
:laugh: You are sooooo, bad!! :laugh: :icon_hug:
N~
Post Merge: May 07, 2009, 02:14:04 PM
Quote from: Sandy on May 07, 2009, 01:59:32 PMin the ->-bleeped-<-/trans relationship, either the ->-bleeped-<- lied, or the trans only heard what they wanted to hear, and that's how hearts get broken.
-Sandy
I think we use that "lie" word way to effortlessly and way too exclusively if we use it for the so-called "->-bleeped-<-s," Sandy.
If I wind up meeting some guy or woman at a "trans" venue or on a "TG" date site shouldn't I have just maybe the sneaking suspicion that there's some possibility that said person is perhaps not looking for pristine love, affection and a post-op? :)
O, I'm sure there are post-ops who use both venues. But still and all, I have this inclination to place the responsibility for the broken hearts on the possessors of the broken hearts, not particularly on the heart breakers in these cases.
If ya don't take care of yourself you prolly shouldn't expect someone else to do your heavy lifting for ya. :)
Nichole
Quote from: Nichole on May 07, 2009, 02:08:29 PM
If ya don't take care of yourself you prolly shouldn't expect someone else to do your heavy lifting for ya. :)
Nichole
Absolutely! And that gets back to getting their affirmation from outside rather than inside, doesn't it?
And if a person, any person, relies on external validation for their self esteem, then they are an accident waiting to happen.
Jamie *was* looking for a discussion on the subject, wasn't he?
-Sandy
What is important to me is that which is on the inside, not the mask.
Quote from: Sandy on May 07, 2009, 02:24:30 PM
Absolutely! And that gets back to getting their affirmation from outside rather than inside, doesn't it?
And if a person, any person, relies on external validation for their self esteem, then they are an accident waiting to happen.
Jamie *was* looking for a discussion on the subject, wasn't he?
-Sandy
Yes, my friend. In order.
Yes, it does.
Yes, they are.
And last, yes, I believe a discussion was the intended reason for the post that was given.
There seems to be headway along that line, no? :laugh: :laugh:
N~
Quote from: Matilda on May 07, 2009, 02:47:13 PM
... A ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<- puts his/her desires to satisfy his/her own needs ahead of someone else's wishes and boundaries. I'm not sure about you, but to me that sounds utterly offensive. ...
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi572.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fss161%2Fmatilda23%2F061.gif&hash=8f2301193b0dc73bb2e3c64f938f2048ea1a0591)
Why yes, it does sound offensive to me. :) But what's also offensive to me is the idea that somehow these persons just run all over the poor helpless trans-woman's "wishes and boundaries."
If that is true then the case is "rape." There's a lot of good case law and precedent that will handle the rape bidness just fine. And I doubt any of us in some way do not see another human being as a means to an end. Even the best relationships sometimes have sub-texts that maybe both partners are unaware of and take for granted. Of course we don't then usually admit to ourselves that we are "objectifying someone." More's the pity.
In prolly 100% of the instances we are decrying here the transwoman had her own particular agenda that did not include taking into consideration that there are always reasons that she's doing what she's doing. And that another person may well not be out to accede to her wishes and desires, but may have an agenda of his own.
I would argue that the problem is exactly "wishes and boundaries" and that the transwoman has never bothered to develop any that are safe for her and stick with them. That her "real" boundaries lie elsewhere if she has any at all and that she basically reaps the whirlwind due to her desperate attempt to find validation external to herself.
But, that's just me.
Nichole
Re: Playing Devil's Advocate: What's so bad about "->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-s"?
While my ego tells me I can get any straight woman I want, it's always good to have a back-up plan.
Quote from: Nero on May 07, 2009, 03:14:30 PM
Re: Playing Devil's Advocate: What's so bad about "->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-s"?
While my ego tells me I can get any straight woman I want, it's always good to have a back-up plan.
:laugh: Well, my sense of your ego tells me that you can prolly get any bisexual woman you want as well, you stinker! :laugh:
Love ya, Nero. :)
Nichole
Quote from: Nichole on May 07, 2009, 01:29:02 PM
...
And I am well aware that some people do just fine through internet meets and finding "soul mates" that way. But, do the vast majority of people? And did anyone ever manage to have a soul mate who lives and remains 3000 or 300 or even 30 miles away througout the duration of the relationship?
Who knows about the vast majority of people; and who really cares. Must we base everything we do on the out comes of the vast majority?
Quote
Single examples neither prove a point nor erase the amount of self-inflicted pain that any number of transsexual women bring on themselves by having a desire to "be loved" and later find out that what's loved is the pre-op state they were in.
It would seem that you have tried these dating sites and somehow had a bad experience. Single examples of successes demonstrate to those seeking the same that it is quite possible so why discount them? Should ts women stop seeking love because of this?
Quote
How many who decide to wait to date until after surgery know they aren't being loved for the ways they were conditioned to behave as men prior to transition? Or due to their "being more feminine than real women?" Or that they are computer engineers or have blonde hair, or large arms or well-turned legs or bubble-butts or skinny-butts?
Or natal females - Ugly rich ones for their money, poor good looking one's for their looks. We are all grown-ups living in a grown up world, it would seem that you feel that those belonging to, or consider themselves as a T* are less than capable of looking after themselves, but I probably miss read.
Quote
Finally, is anyone who dates "pre-op" a "->-bleeped-<-" a priori? Puh-leez. May not be my way of doing things but it hardly is a "marker" for being a ->-bleeped-<-. :laugh:
Hmmm I thought it was a valid question! I guess not, I bow to your obvious intelect in these matters.
:eusa_clap:
QuoteThe cautionary tale is to not fool one's self and manage to think that a date or sex or "being told I am seen as a woman" means that you are now officially "a woman." To allow your entire sense of self and self-efficacy to be only dependant on what sort of person another "sees me as" is just plain self-defeating.
Take some time to realize yourself. If you do that while dating, at your job, through your church or whatever is fine.
But, the point remains, "->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-s" are playing a game that is indulged in by both sides for reasons of their own. There's nothing inherently evil, manipulative or dishonest in that provided that you understand that on both sides the game is being played. I mean heck, how does that differ in any way from any courtship ritual?
The thought that there is some pure and pristine Platonic ideal that everyone should find in their partner may be a nice thought, but it really doesn't enter much into anyone's reality. Does it?
Nichole
Obviously from your own experience :-*
-={LR}=-
My, you do seem to have a desire to have a fight with someone today, eh, LR? :laugh:
Well, I'm not the one.
You're allowed to believe anything you think is "obvious" to you. Obviously you will anyway. :angel:
N~
A ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<- is someone who fetishizes this physical and anatomical inconsistency.
Most of the ones I've met were rather sad and lonely people, not exactly unlike the people they are chasing I guess.
Single examples of successes demonstrate to those seeking the same that it is quite possible so why discount them
Single examples, unless you have some sort of story that lifts them to a universal, tend to be, single examples. They, in and of themselves, prove nothing. Sooner or later, everything is going to happen. They are more proof of that than anything else. It's like I knew a woman who was a hard core whiskey drinking and smoked like a chimney. Old broad lived into her 90s. However, just because she made it that far, its not exactly a recipe for everyone else who want's to do that, to follow. As Dr. Hunter S. Thompson once said: I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me. Worked for me too, so that's two of us, but still, I wouldn't recommend them for everyone either.
Who knows about the vast majority of people
Good statistical polling comes close. And yeah, I'm not going to base what I do from that, but its good to know anyway. Sure stops a lot of the sniveling about 'how no one accepts me now' - a little research would have told you to accept that, to at least some degree.
Should ts women stop seeking love because of this?
CUE BAND, in three, two, one...
I was looking for love in all the wrong places
Looking for love in too many faces
Searching your eyes, looking for traces
Of what.. I'm dreaming of...
Hopin' to find a friend and a lover
God bless the day I discover
Another heart, lookin' for love - thanks to Waylon Jennings for sitting in on this post too.
Or maybe the truth is that in the most perfect relationships, "we" aren't actually "objectifying anyone",
Or. Perhaps. In every love affair there is a little objectifying, its just the kind we like.
Well, there is a huge difference between treating someone as a sexual fetish/toy as opposed to treating them like a person. When you objectify someone, you disregard their feelings and just treat them as "yours to play with". A ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<- puts his/her desires to satisfy his/her own needs ahead of someone else's wishes and boundaries. I'm not sure about you, but to me that sounds utterly offensive.
On the other hand, I've been so some parties... Oh why bother, it's not like you would have been invited.
Quote from: Nichole on May 07, 2009, 05:00:44 PM
My, you do seem to have a desire to have a fight with someone today, eh, LR? :laugh:
Well, I'm not the one.
You're allowed to believe anything you think is "obvious" to you. Obviously you will anyway. :angel:
N~
Nope not really, just expressing my point of view. If I offended I'm sorry it was not intended.
Geeze... between you and tekla you'll have all those poor desperate souls who admire ->-bleeped-<-->-bleeped-<-s, and those who were unfortunate enough to get involved with them, jumping off bridges ha, ha. :)
-={LR}=-
Quote from: Ladyrider on May 07, 2009, 07:55:26 PM
Nope not really, just expressing my point of view. If I offended I'm sorry it was not intended.
Geeze... between you and tekla you'll have all those poor desperate souls who admire ->-bleeped-<-->-bleeped-<-s, and those who were unfortunate enough to get involved with them, jumping off bridges ha, ha. :)
-={LR}=-
O no, no offense taken at all.
Like I said, I'm not the one. And won't be. Like I said, ya have every right to express your opinion.
I would suggest though that if ya ever wanna have a battle of rapier wits? Thatcha try gettin' a rapier instead of one of those lil plastic drink-garnish swords ya git at Applebee's. Works better that way. :laugh:
Take care now.
Nichole
I've had a few guys show an interest in me. But they seem to be afraid to come get some honey ??? So, Virginia is still a virgin in that respect :P Silly busy bees
Actually it's not like I would have wanted to go if invited! Yikes! *shivers*
Perhaps. But by the time I went, I had worked around the world, including a few top universities, and Washington D.C., and I had done tour with a couple of bands, one famous for parties on a level that few could ever imagine. I know what people mean by 'party like a rock star' and I also know that they are not even close to how wild it really gets. I had run nightclubs, hung out with famous and rich people, and not in my wildest imagination could I have ever thought that there were ever parties like these (outside of Imperial Rome).
Good times.
I prefer the term "->-bleeped-<- admirer". Anyone who goes after a relationship with sex as the primary motive is an A hole. It doesn't matter if they're straight,gay,bi,etc. In a good relationship it shouln't matter if a person is Tg or not. There are chubby ->-bleeped-<-s and some chubbies I know eat it up. It's only for sex but they love the attention.
The potential problem is basic: Someone who's getting gratified by a category may or may not pay the right kind of attention to you as an individual. Worse, when you do something that doesn't give them the category gratification, they may take out their sense of frustration on you.
That's not just a problem with ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-s; it applies just as well to people thrilled by being around some disability, or people of another race, or whatever. If their category desire feeds into a good and healthy respect for you as an individual, then it's a kink that's OK. If it takes away from you and your specific existence, not so much.
Quote from: Genevieve Swann on May 08, 2009, 06:49:05 AM
... Anyone who goes after a relationship with sex as the primary motive is an A hole. ...
Isn't there some sorta middle-ground that allows that not everyone's required to follow through on my particular biases? I mean, some people enjoy, yep, really enjoy, sexual congress and some of those people prolly don't have those unions (and prolly neither do their partners) for reasons other than having good sex, or adequate sex, or whatever. :)
Voltaire once remarked that "there's a bit of gonad in all human actions and thoughts." I imagine that there's a lot of truth to that as I really don't know anyone who got married or into long- or short-term relationships without there being a sexual union that was also part of the deal.
Again, I see that A hole bit as on the romantic and ideal side of the scale and one that doesn't actually take into account human reality for the most part. I mean, I think I get what your talking about and I definitely agree that we have mostly here in USA been conditioned to have this rosy lil view of a relationship that transcends sex or takes not into account sexual attraction. But, over the past few hundred years our culture also seems to have developed a "puritan"(?) goal that sees a sort of next world idealism as the perfect and regards anything material (except money and power) as a lesser station of being human. A sort of striving to be always aetherial rather than material. Of course the actual cultural reality is that we are at the same time perhaps the world's most material culture in history. Even entry to Heaven's Gate seems to be based on how well god blesses one with material fortune. An elect with a stuffed wallet, definitely Puritan again.
I suspect that none of us are particularly hot on being solely objectified, but the fact remains that in the largest parts of our lives we are both objectified and objectify others. I mean how do you avoid it? I don't know anyone who transitioned, for example, to be totally "ugly" and unblending, a caricature of womanhood or manhood.
If we were truly after that aetherial ideal life wouldn't we just not give much of a damn about how we looked or were regarded by another?
So, I think the notion that we are trying to find something more core to the person than looks or a sexual organ is a positive and even good quest. But I don't believe that the ideal is much in vogue in the material lives we all lead.
As an example I hope Kat doesn't mind if I use them. I have never actually met them, but I have read them for a good long while now and at first glance in reading thought they were remarkably intelligent. That lasted about two weeks until I read some stuff I thought was outrageously nasty and cruel. So we clashed for some time.
Yet, the longer I read, even just trying to find something I could disagree with the more impressed I became with what I saw as a really positive set of qualities in intelligence, learning, experience and just pretty good writing and thinking. I moved off of the confrontational stuff and actually realized I admired their ability and found it attractive. Yet, I had never seen a picture even of them until like two weeks ago when they linked one for us to see for a day or two.
Did that picture capture a person I had found I had come to respect and enjoy talking with? I dunno. I had pretty much objectified them as someone I enjoyed sharing chats with about things we found mutually attractive: culture-watching, social standards, bike-riding, photography, history and some mutual agreements on things that had to do with transsexing and trangender themes.
Now, that was a positive objectification of them. But, I don't really know them. I have no "real" basis for having a positive view of them and I am well-aware that they are certainly not everyone's cuppa tea here at Susan's. So there's parts of them that I tend to leave out in my views about them. And all of that from 3000 miles away having never actually even shaken hands with one another. In my mind I have objectified this person as someone I like and have a high regard for, but I really have no basis for that except that I like most of the words and the ideas and stances I see think I see them expound here.
My guess is that we all do that and especially through this medium. We get a feel for a person and they may or may not have any definite irl qualities like the ones we grant them through this aether.
IRL, we see someone who's attractive to us physically, get to know them (hopefully) a bit and maybe involve ourselves in a relationship with them of some sort, maybe sexually as well. Do we "really" know that person or do we consistently objectify them in positive ways? Well, at least until we get aggrieved with them over some foible we see or some clash of personality we see.
The idea that we want someone sexually for how their bodies are configured seems to me just a part of our lives. Your example of "chubby ->-bleeped-<-s" was a great example of that. It doesn't perforce mean that the chubby ->-bleeped-<- is just after obesity or rolls of cellulite though. It's just a physical quality that attracts them. If the relationship goes past a one night or a few nights stand then there will be more to it than simply that original attractor.
As someone said, it's kinda like only dating as a prospective love interest men of African descent or women of Scandinavian descent. It's an attractor. Whatever else occurs or doesn't isn't, imo, anymore valid or invalid because of the original attractor. It's just something we generally do.
Nichole
Quote from: Nichole on May 08, 2009, 10:45:35 AM
But, over the past few hundred years our culture also seems to have developed a "puritan"(?) goal that sees a sort of next world idealism as the perfect and regards anything material (except money and power) as a lesser station of being human.
I would say that Americans didn't develop that Puritan ethic in the last few hundred years; we started out with it. And most of us haven't yet learned how to escape it.
And most of us haven't yet learned how to escape it.
I give lessons, seminars and field trips.
Quote from: tekla on May 08, 2009, 12:07:31 PM
I give lessons, seminars and field trips.
I'll pass the word along.
Graduate School really rocks.
Quote from: Arch on May 08, 2009, 12:00:42 PM
I would say that Americans didn't develop that Puritan ethic in the last few hundred years; we started out with it. And most of us haven't yet learned how to escape it.
Like not quite 400 years yet, Arch? :) Massachusetts Bay, Puritans and some others, 1629; Plymouth, Levellers, 1620. We really haven't had more than the past few hundred years to develop anythin' here, have we? :)
But yes, that Puritan streak has been very pronounced from pretty much the beginning. But it has developed as it doesn't really look exactly like it did almost 400 years ago, does it? :)
N~
Quote from: Nichole on May 08, 2009, 12:21:07 PM
Like not quite 400 years yet, Arch? :) Massachusetts Bay, Puritans and some others, 1629; Plymouth, Levellers, 1620. We really haven't had more than the past few hundred years to develop anythin' here, have we? :)
Not quite sure what you're getting at; I was just quoting you without quotation marks.
Bad habit, that. I berate my students for it all the time. ::)
Quote from: Arch on May 08, 2009, 12:25:34 PM
Not quite sure what you're getting at; I was just quoting you without quotation marks.
Bad habit, that. I berate my students for it all the time. ::)
Ah, that explains it. Quoting without using quotation marks.
Or tekla's italics. Or the italics tekla employs? :) I was focused on
Americans didn't develop that Puritan ethic in the last few hundred years.
Sorry, didn't get the quote without quotes. :)
Whatcha teach? Writing and grammar or history?
I don't think they are exactly my italics - if they are, the English Language owes me big time, send the check to...
I just find them a bit more elegant in BB postings.
Quote from: tekla on May 08, 2009, 12:40:43 PM
I don't think they are exactly my italics - if they are, the English Language owes me big time, send the check to...
I just find them a bit more elegant in BB postings.
Corrected. :laugh:
Quote from: Nichole on May 08, 2009, 12:36:43 PM
Whatcha teach? Writing and grammar or history?
Alas, writing, composition. I love it, but I do wish my students were a little more articulate. I guess we all do.
And directions. It would help if they could/would follow the freaking directions. But then they would actually have to read something.
Just call me Comp Cop. :police:
Hmm. What happened to the ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<- discussion?
I do wish my students were a little more articulate.
Ummm, isn't that your job to make them more articulate? If they were all that smart, they would not need to be there in the first place, right?
Quote from: Arch on May 08, 2009, 12:57:26 PM
Alas, writing, composition. I love it, but I do wish my students were a little more articulate. I guess we all do.
And directions. It would help if they could/would follow the freaking directions. But then they would actually have to read something.
Just call me Comp Cop. :police:
Hmm. What happened to the ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<- discussion?
I've done that and felt the same darned way! And that was in the mid-70s! Doesn't sound like it's changed much. But as tekla said, if they were as good as one hoped there'd be no need for graduate assistants now would there? :)
I think the three of us pretty well derailed the ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<- discussion for now and it was going soooo well. :) I'm sure someone will get it back on track.
N~
Being after a relationship simply for the sex does not an a-hole make, being dishonest and manipulative about it does.
If a person is open and honest about it, it doesn't matter if they're a ->-bleeped-<-, they're Good People.
Quote from: tekla on May 08, 2009, 12:59:14 PM
Ummm, isn't that your job to make them more articulate? If they were all that smart, they would not need to be there in the first place, right?
Actually, no, it's not my freaking job to MAKE them more articulate. It's their job to do the reading and follow directions and practice their writing and respond to my margin comments and take it upon themselves to learn key points of grammar and punctuation that they should know already and come in for help when they are floundering. They are adults. I'm not their babysitter. I can't come into their dorm rooms and say, "Now, this course requires you to prep for at least twelve hours a week outside of class. Are you doing your homework?" I can only help them when they first help themselves.
I should also point out that ten weeks is not a lot of time for anyone to become noticeably more articulate, that very many of my students still can't write a coherent paragraph to save their ailing grannies (isn't that a skill they should have learned by high school? The students, not the grannies), and that it doesn't help me when some of my predecessors show their incompetence and lack of rigor and standards when they make idiot remarks like, "Oh, I never give lower than a C" or "It's WHAT they say that matters, not how they say it" or "I don't like to make negative comments on student papers; I don't want to hurt their feelings." I'm always so glad to get the students that these colleagues have passed on to me.
I wholeheartedly agree that if the students were all perfect little writers, they wouldn't need to be there. And I would be out of a job. But their level of incompetence can be quite astounding. I once went to Barnes & Noble and found a little workbook of third-grade skills and knowledge about writing and grammar--very basic stuff. I tested my freshman and sophomore college students on some of this material. As a group, they failed miserably.
Nichole, I wish our grad students were better trained themselves. They are lit people, and many of them do not know writing basics. Many of them admit their ignorance, say things like, "I've never liked grammar," and then mutter something about maybe reviewing a grammar handbook at some point--they clearly see it as a chore, something to be put off indefinitely. And yet these are the folks who work in the writing lab and give my students lousy writing advice. If they don't know anything about parallel structure, preposition overuse, or comma splices, how can these grads competently advise my students on clarity and style and articulateness?
I know I was a freaky little kid. I've been nuts for grammar, style, usage, and vocab since I was very small. So I'm an unusual case. But seriously, how can people justify NOT knowing the very thing they've been hired to teach? It boggles my mind.
I don't think things are getting worse, by the way. Writing well is hard work for most people. I have every reason to believe that comp teachers have been in the same boat for at least the last sixty-five years. It would just be nice to have more students who follow basic directions and actually look up a key word that they don't know and take seriously my contention (shown to be accurate again and again) that once they produce a draft, the work has just started. Stuff like that.
And now back to the topic at hand: which spelling should we use, "->-bleeped-<-" or "->-bleeped-<-"? I prefer the former, myself.
->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-s present the greatest dating opportunity available to pre-ops.
Who cares if they're doing it because they want a chick with a dick. They still have a heart, and many if not most are looking for a competent partner as much as they're looking to play out their favorite porno in their own bedroom.
I've happily put up some rather enticing pics on ->-bleeped-<-->-bleeped-<- websites. Apparently South Carolina is rather void of people attracted to that sort of thing, either that or my abrasive attitude counters my attempts at interwebz seduction.
However, the first thing I ask all my suitors is, "what difference is so significant between a biowoman and a transwoman that you would seek one out by subscribing to a dating site exclusively for transwomen." The ones who beat around the bush and can't just say they're friggin gay and want an excusable boyfriend get ignored. I'm not going to date anyone who doesn't have a strong image of me as a woman in his/her mind.
Some just say that transwomen have a tendency to exhibit stronger female attributes than the masculinized women of the 21st century. They just appreciate a woman who ENJOYS wearing a dress, as opposed to jeans and burger chicks. I, personally, can agree with that and appreciate that.
I do have my own hangups about my lower anatomy right now--something to work through in therapy. But anyone who is attracted to me BECAUSE of my, er, front hole--or because s/he thinks or hopes I have a front hole--is not someone I would want to get involved with.
But that's just me.
I apologize ahead of time for not reading most of the thread past the initial post, but I have strong feelings on this:
Objectification is the problem. These men see us as objects, not as people. They don't want a person, they want a sex toy. If I am an object, it means I'm not human. It means to that person, my feelings and desires aren't worthwhile and most likely don't count - and if they do at all, not nearly as much as his counts. Once a person is an object in the eyes of another, there can be no relationship, there can be no love, there can be nothing but (ab)use.
Quickly let me say that I don't know that everyone who qualifies as a "->-bleeped-<-" fits my above description, but I'm generally skeptical of anyone who seeks after someone for any particular external characteristic.
Quote from: Janet Lynn on May 07, 2009, 09:28:29 AM
I am on a couple of sites for TS/TG, and most are looking for relationships based on sex
...
Face it, that is what bioguys want.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fancypantsgangsters.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F03%2Fmy_hair_is_a_bird-257x300.jpg&hash=6e7cf953b58e162c5db201d4b5c611ca77b48805)
Ok, adding more... might add even more as I read responses.
The other problem with ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-s has more to do with those who WANT to be chased or rather those most susceptible to their ploys. To the new TS, the inexperienced, just beginning transsexual who has what seems to be the world against them, the ->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<- can seem like their best friend! They give them muuuch desired validation of their femaleness and more than probably anyone else. This addicts or at least strongly attracts the insecure TS to the ->-bleeped-<-, leading to an unhealthy relationship based upon a need of validation rather than true understanding, friendship and a desire for one another's wellbeing.
I saw this happen over and over again. The ->-bleeped-<-'s obviously sexually motivated comments form the basis of the confidence of the new TS only to have them crushed when either A) reality sets in, or B) the ->-bleeped-<- moves on. You must transition for yourself, and you must build your own confidence and self assurity - it cannot be based upon the feelings and expectations of others or you will fail.
Quote from: Ceri on May 08, 2009, 10:23:24 AM
If their category desire feeds into a good and healthy respect for you as an individual, then it's a kink that's OK. If it takes away from you and your specific existence, not so much.
Nicely put. :eusa_clap:
Quote from: interalia on May 09, 2009, 01:55:14 AM
You must transition for yourself, and you must build your own confidence and self assurity - it cannot be based upon the feelings and expectations of others or you will fail.
Also an excellent point. :icon_yes:
Quote from: Janet Lynn on May 07, 2009, 09:28:29 am
I am on a couple of sites for TS/TG, and most are looking for relationships based on sex
...
Face it, that is what bioguys want.
Quote from: Vexing on May 09, 2009, 01:44:40 AM
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fancypantsgangsters.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F03%2Fmy_hair_is_a_bird-257x300.jpg&hash=6e7cf953b58e162c5db201d4b5c611ca77b48805)
Agreed, Vexing. I may represent the exception, but sex was never my interest - even when I let my "Actor" take over. It always seemed the girls were far more interested than I was - they were just more reserved about pressing for it due to cultural stigmas.
Well, we do seem to be back on track, and even a bit repetitive now...
-Sandy
Quote from: interalia on May 09, 2009, 01:38:12 AM
Objectification is the problem. These men see us as objects, not as people. They don't want a person, they want a sex toy. If I am an object, it means I'm not human. It means to that person, my feelings and desires aren't worthwhile and most likely don't count - and if they do at all, not nearly as much as his counts. Once a person is an object in the eyes of another, there can be no relationship, there can be no love, there can be nothing but (ab)use.
First, thanks for the PM. That was really quite nice of you and I appreciate the esteem. :)
Yet, I don't think objectification
per se is the problem, Inter.
Just like with Genevieve's statements I see what you're driving toward, at least I think so, and appreciate that as well.
But, I have to differ that
objectification is
the problem. If it were possible, imo, in this life on this plane, to NOT objectify even those we have the highest regard and love for then I'd agree whole-heartedly. But non-objectification is an ideal goal, seems to me.
I adore my partner and son, yet I rather consistently objectify them both: one of the best four or five therapists I have ever seen, known of, or heard work. My son is a boy who's musical talent has a very large capacity.
My partner is a great therapist, no doubt. But she isn't "therapist" as if she's only a therapist or somehow defines the ideal captured in that word,
therapist. My son, although quite talented with his singing and his ability with the string-bass doesn't define "talented child." And yes, both are a lot more than just those two qualities. In fact those qualities themselves are made up of qualities that are far more numerous than two.
The very act of giving qualities to anything seems to me to objectify whatever we give the quality.
This is that. The person is everso much more than the quality or series of qualities I give them. And to list their qualities, positive, negative, neutral is to make of them, I think, an object. I am then not appreciating the "thing-in-itself." Or in this case "the person-in-herself."
If I had to try and pinpoint the problem it would be something on the order of being unable to grok that I objectify everything and everyone as they do me as a condition of being human. It's a price of living in this plane.
We imagine an ideal, just like Plato. But, when it all comes down to it, it seems like there is simply the fact of people running into one another and dealing with the world as it is. The ideal is a thought-experiment we use as a signpost for "what I like and appreciate and what I don't." :)
The problem I see is that we use the ideal as the measure of how we deal with the real. The ->-bleeped-<- says he or she finds me "beautiful" or "a real woman" and I have a huge desire to take that objectification and believe in it's truth because that objectification gratifies me.
If I am not careful and don't take into account what we call "reality" (different I imagine for us all) then I often enough become so enclosed in my own desire that I cannot see that there may be other things at work than simply finding the ideal within myself.
His or her "ideal" may just be finding someone to bed; whether he or she finds me "just another woman" or man, or whether if I am pre-op he or she would like that "something extra." I forget when I gain that gratification of being desired that there are many reasons for that admiration. Many facets to it, many of which have nothing at all to do with the stated reason for the attraction.
It seems to me that that state is universal in human existence. It's great to strive toward the ideal. But the fact remains that I very seldom if ever reach the ideal. If I can be aware of that fact then perhaps I can deal with my life more in the way of living it "as it seems to be" rather than living it as if the ideal has, or could, become real.
All relationship, seems to me, is a give and take of that foundation of the "real" versus the "ideal." If I can keep that to the fore, then perhaps I will be able to minimize the pain I both give others and feel due to others.
One thing seems sure to me: the more I interact with the world the more pain I will both give and take. Yet, my existence gives me no choice but to interact with the rest of the world. Thus, to minimize the pain I think I should prolly try to enjoy in the moment what regard or relationship I am able to have and try to maintain my vigilance about getting all-consumed with the ideal.
Nichole
Sex is sex.
You don't think any blonde booby bombed babe isn't going to be objectified?
Like I said.
Sex is sex. Enjoy it or reject it, it's what this world thrives off of and by denying it you're leaving yourself clueless to a large part of fitting into society.
Thanks for the reply, Nichole and for the many interesting viewpoints presented on this thread - it has been a pleasure to read them so far.
As far as objectification. I think what you are defining Nichole (based on my perhaps (mis)understanding of what you are writing, specifically involving the ways you see your partner and son at times) is when we give something a label. Now labels are OFTEN used to objectify and dehumanize others, however the existence of a label doesn't necessarily indicate objectification has happened. In your example, you label the various attributes of those you love, but those people are not the sum of their attributes to you - they are something more - they are people, just like you, people you want to cherish, and value as much if not more than yourself. Does this mean you will NEVER objectify them? Definitely not! In fact, even those we love we objectify daily - specifically in times when we blame them, when we make them out to be the enemy and when we find ourselves looking for validation to harm them either verbally, emotionally, or (gasp) physically. The trick to reestablishing balance in the relationship and making it healthy again is that those periods of objectification do eventually pass, eventually we see them as human again and like unto ourselves, someone we would die before hurting, someone we will give up our own happiness to ensure theirs.
Now how does all my drivel relate to ->-bleeped-<-s? Well the thing is, the ->-bleeped-<- *begins* the relationship with an object (the TS), not a person. Now perhaps eventually the TS will be humanized in the empathetic ->-bleeped-<-s eyes and a relationship can form that is not solely based upon using the other, but in most cases, a situation where one or both individuals are an object to the other is a recipe for disaster - whether it be a casual work relationship, or an intense sexual one. Once someone has been substantially objectified and dehumanized, and so long as there is no motivation to begin the process of rehumanizing the other individual, only destruction can occur.
I do exuberantly agree that the TS has blame in this, but not the majority of it. In the end the TS is the victim in most cases excepting situations where the TS seeks the ->-bleeped-<-. (I am basing this off of the fact that in my experience, the ->-bleeped-<- chases the TS, not the other way around in most cases). Is the con artist or the conned more to blame? Both are to blame perhaps, but the con artist is doing the greater evil. Same goes for these men willing to dehumanize and use these women. The women have their own motivations (or perhaps ignorance) to accept these relationships perhaps which gives them fault in the case, but they are not the instigator, they are the victim. These men take advantage of individuals who are terribly disadvantaged in their lives, and whether it be a con artist taking advantage of an elderly women, or a ->-bleeped-<- taking advantage of a distraught, unconfident TS, I consider it to be abuse.
Post Merge: May 09, 2009, 10:52:07 AM
Quote from: Annwyn on May 09, 2009, 10:21:03 AM
Sex is sex.
You don't think any blonde booby bombed babe isn't going to be objectified?
Like I said.
Sex is sex. Enjoy it or reject it, it's what this world thrives off of and by denying it you're leaving yourself clueless to a large part of fitting into society.
If sex for the sake of sex is the norm and not to establish an already existing and powerful relationship with another is a large part of fitting into society, I am more than willing to stand out and apart from that society - or better, change it.
In order to have to worry about '->-bleeped-<-s' you first have to let yourself get caught. Since it takes two people to play that game, if you don't play, it ain't gonna happen to you. Pretty simple.
So some, perhaps a whole lot of men are very, very interested in sex and not really into 'doing relationships.' WOW! Stop the presses, we have a news flash now eh? Knock me over with a feather.
And women, never ever feed that objectification deal do they. Heck no, that very low cut, v-neck blouse is only to release all the heat her bazombas are building up in there. Has nothing to do with pretty much putting the girls on display or anything. Move along, nothing to see here.
So, when women go to a country music show and I can tell that that's a 2002 'D' Series dime in her pocket, that was strictly by accident. I'm sure that she is only wearing those jeans because all her other ones were dirty. She just sort of tugged herself into those jeans without noticing.
Or ... didn't notice that the skirt was so short that I could see London and France as she walked down the street in her F-Me pumps. Sure.
And, there are a lot of times when I don't really want to be seen as a person. I'm there in some role, with some title, and I want the position and role and title respected, irregardless of the persons feeling about what a great guy, or jerk, I am.
There are (or should be, and I try to get rid of people who don't groove to the notion) times when I don't want anything personal. It all falls into the concept of nothing personal, its just business - and really, nothing personal its show business.
At those times, I could care less about you as a person, and I would hope, that for the sake of your job, you could leave you personal problems - all of them - at the door and not pick them up again till your off work. I don't care about you as a person, I only care about the quality of your work. You should not worry about my worth as a human being, you should worry about me being a fair boss, doing the paperwork right so you can get paid, and making sure all the safety rules are followed so you can go home later that night. Beyond that, it should not matter.
If your posting on boards for 'dates' (and I always think of such dating sites as pretty much the working girls downtown asking, "Hey baby, you need a date tonight?") don't be shocked that some people are looking for something physical and not spiritual. If you are out at some pick up spot, don't act so shocked that some people there are just looking for some casual hookup.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE GAME, THEN DON'T PLAY IT.
QuoteI do exuberantly agree that the TS has blame in this, but not the majority of it. In the end the TS is the victim in most cases excepting situations where the TS seeks the ->-bleeped-<-. (I am basing this off of the fact that in my experience, the ->-bleeped-<- chases the TS, not the other way around in most cases). Is the con artist or the conned more to blame? Both are to blame perhaps, but the con artist is doing the greater evil.
Yeah, just not exuberantly enough. Not exuberantly enough to realize that the longer you cut morons breaks and tell them they are on god's side and the evil old objectifier is satan's spawn the more exuberant she'll be to keep doing what she does.
In MY experience, a lot of MTFs want to present themselves with the patina of someone who is demure and "classically feminine." And for "classically feminine" you can read: acting like Scarlett before she worked in Atlanta.
The entire idea that women see that as feminine and not simply a caricature of imbecility is to miss the point of both femininity and womanhood, seems to me.
In your experience apparently the time she took to get ready, took to get to the club, etc is in no way part of the "->-bleeped-<-" phenomenon? Puh-leez. She aint' goin' to "->-bleeped-<- Circus" for Shirley Temple's and a trans support meeting, is she? No, she's going to try to attract someone.
That said, she is absolutely as much to blame for the entire interaction as the ->-bleeped-<- and she is SOLELY responsible for her own "hurt," "devastation" or any pain, PERIOD!!!!
And more, she's responsible for being a moron if she goes there without some notion of how to play the game and not get her emotional clock cleaned.
Ya go to a meat market and you should expect to be seen as a piece of meat regardless of whether you're a "->-bleeped-<- ->-bleeped-<-" or a "chasing ->-bleeped-<-."
As long as you insist that "objectification" is only about "bad things" then you're gonna keep missing the point. It matters not whether you're coating it with a hard-candy shell or horse manure. If you're coating it you're objectifying it. It is serving you as some sort of tool. Makes it kinda on the same plane as a saw or car, doncha think?
N~
Is the con artist or the conned more to blame? Both are to blame perhaps, but the con artist is doing the greater evil.
What's the first rule of running a con job? You can't con a con. You can't con someone else who knows how the game is rigged. You can only con the person who thinks they are getting something for nothing (or at least real cheap). The mark is running off of greed, trying to get through the easy way, rather then do the work required to get what they want the straightforward way.
Quote from: tekla on May 09, 2009, 03:33:49 PM
Is the con artist or the conned more to blame? Both are to blame perhaps, but the con artist is doing the greater evil.
What's the first rule of running a con job? You can't con a con. You can't con someone else who knows how the game is rigged. You can only con the person who thinks they are getting something for nothing (or at least real cheap). The mark is running off of greed, trying to get through the easy way, rather then do the work required to get what they want the straightforward way.
Eh, that's not really true. There are plenty of people who con folks by playing on their humanity - setting up fake charities, and the like.
And there are times when you
do have to worry about a ->-bleeped-<-, even if you aren't willing to play the game. I can remember so many times when I was a teenager and had creepy guys come on to me, and just not want to take "no" for an answer. I was a pretty good fighter, but I was still half their size and didn't have their strength. It can be pretty scary. I was fortunate, and never found myself in a situation I couldn't handle. A lot of people aren't that lucky.
Still, I see your point. A lot of people put themselves in a vulnerable position because they're not willing to see the reality of the situation.
I do find the concept of objectification interesting, though. Is it really possible to be physically attracted to someone with out objectifying them to some degree? As Tekla suggested earlier, isn't the issue more one of whether or not the person being objectified is a willing participant or not?
E.G. If I think my BF is really hot in a leather collar, am I objectifying him? Absolutely. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Well, he let me put the collar on him, didn't he? >:-)
Of course, the difference in this hypothetical scenario is that we presumably have a history and a connection that transcends those moments of objectification. And we are both willing participants, hopefully walking in with our eyes wide open.
I think one of the major problems we're having here is communication w/o some western european/judeo-originated religious dichotomy. IOW, when we talk about "objectification" most of the people are unable to get past the idea that a series of actions might be positive and yet still objectifying. Ya know, the duality -- this is good and so, perforce, cannot also have a bad side.
Yet, I can think of at least one "bad" yet "good" objectification. One a lot of MTFs just adore: chivalry.
Yep, wonderful to have doors opened for ya and being steered to the side of the walk away from the street etc, right?
But the rest of that is that the reason has been that the woman is chattel and needs to be properly cared for like any good tool.
The entire bidness is/was objectification. The fact that maybe I like part of it and choose to ignore the rest doesn't change the fact. I think what we have done in this thread is that some of the posters want to place any positive objectification into an entirely different category of occurrence in order to keep that definite line between "good" and "bad." And I am really not seeing that there is that strong and definite line.
YMMV
Quote from: tekla on May 09, 2009, 03:33:49 PMYou can't con a con. You can't con someone else who knows how the game is rigged.
On the other hand, there's William Burroughs: "Hustlers of the world, there is one Mark you cannot beat: the Mark Inside." Con artists get conned all the time; big organized crime busts almost always start with seasoned criminals doing something really profoundly stupid. People with experience in manipulating others often overrate their own resistance to the same; I read an interview with Teller of Penn & Teller, and he commented on how hard he has to work to identify and compensate for his own blind spots in evaluating others' acs.
Am I the only one who sees the irony?
Many of you argue that it is the objectification that is the problem, and in the same breath "objectify" all ->-bleeped-<-s by presuming that they're all the same way, do the same thing, act the same way.
By seeing them as ->-bleeped-<-s first, if not only, you don't see them as human beings. And as human beings there may be emotional and psychological aspects to them to put them in a position where they chase simply to feel like "themselves". We don't know what the internal aspects are to every individual to feels drawn to dating transsexuals for any reason.
I'm not sure if I'm not understanding something or if I'm being naive, but I really don't think I objectify people I'm close to. I guess I do for those I work with or just don't know very well, but I really don't think I do it with Hypatia or my other close friends. I don't see any one particular aspect of them more than another. At first, I think I focused on how brilliant Hypatia is, and that's what first attracted me to her, but I don't ever think about it separately anymore. I never picked out a particular trait with my other close friends that I can think of.
My husband always objectified me as this perfect person who was able to save him. I hated that.
Quote from: Starr on May 10, 2009, 10:43:18 AMMy husband always objectified me as this perfect person who was able to save him. I hated that.
This stuck out for me...
Even those who are with you because you're a beautiful, wonderful, amazing human being who makes their life worth living, they objectify you the moment they "expect" you to be always this beautiful, wonderful, amazing, etc..
As I've said before, Starr and I are able to have such a wonderfully close and loving relationship because she does not objectify me at all. She's an excellent example of how not to objectify someone. She sees me as the whole person I really am. I love her so much for that, profoundly grateful and happy.
I don't mind the admirers, but ->-bleeped-<-s i despise. It's like all that most care about is for whats in between our legs, rather than possibly having a nice nature to go along the exterior. I'm sorry, but there's more to me as a person, than whats inbetween my legs. They're just shallow people, with no personality in my opinion. For what i've been through in my life, as i'm sure other trans have, its not worth being displayed and humiliated as a sex toy for them. As to what makes them tick, i don't care. I'm sure if i found out it'd be through something gross. Only a few guys have treated me with respect, the vast majority, forget it.
Post Merge: February 12, 2010, 07:17:04 PM
Quote from: lisagurl on May 07, 2009, 02:31:39 PM
What is important to me is that which is on the inside, not the mask.
Exactly, he could be drop dead gorgeous, but an absolute ba****d with you. Looks fade in time, personality doesn't, or at least it shouldn't.