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

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.