As You Like It - Men Becoming Women

My first experience playing the opposite gender in a virtual world really shocked me. I really hadn't realized how differently people treated the opposite sex. For me, Strife has always been something of an alter ego, a truer aspect of me, maybe not visually but more mentally and emotionally. The type of person I wished I could be. Being Strife has allowed me to be more me in meat space.

My current avatar is a cute snow leopard, he's a hunk. I've had him for a few years but only recently returned to him. He's scrumptious (cute butt, good muscle tone, goes around in nothing but blue board shorts; the primage could use updating though :-/

Part of SL for me is not being defined by my gender. Gender carries all sorts of social baggage. I don't want to be lumped in a category before I open my mouth; Ideas are gender neutral, it shouldn't matter if a man or woman or even a fish expresses them. An idea is no more valid or invalid, no better or worse regardless of who it comes from; good ideas are good, bad ideas are bad. In modern society we watch very carefully who says what, using the information we know about them to prejudge what they say so we can figure out the hidden message and agenda. Adding gender into the mix I feel just complicates it. I like to keep people guessing, so my name is androgynous. I like being something of an enigma, I like to be unique. I am Strife first, male or female second.

To answer the OP's question, I wish to be something more than the mundane, more than part of a dominant or a subdued sex. The OP might as well be asking if I wish my eyes were blue. Gender may influence who I am but it doesn't make me who I am; which ever side of the fence I was on wouldn't change that.

A song that came to mind while I was writing...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1AFDwb7lBg

That's really rough. I know a few people who are intersex and I don't know any who are happy with their sex.

Thats what they say cause they aren't gay! Only after you've thought about what it would be like with another man can you make that determination! I'm not in the least bit attracted to other men and i found this out a young age when like every other red blooded american boy i had just about every possible perverted fantasy you can think of. What i mean is that your private fantasies and thoughts don't necessarily define your sexuality. I've been around and grew up with some of the most heterosexual males you could find but i can guarantee every single one of them have had some very unmanly fantasies if they would ever be honest enough to reveal them.

Personally from experience being either gender has its disadvantages.
Irl its interesting when no one could tell what I was how others strangers would
become intrusive and threaten by this because they didn't know what I was.
It was very odd place to be in. As guy I am most of time invisible unless it summer
and I wear certain things then I become this odd side show freak and bearded lady.
In sl I guess its more common to see avatars that are neither gender it doesn't seem
as threatening for some reason.
I could be good looking woman in any reality even here but I don't enjoy being seen as female and I don't like the attention it is too uncomfortable for me when people flirt with me.
Although irl it was odd having guys run down the street after me, to be yelled bull dyke at and threaten, to what hell are you, to non-existant guy walking down the street.

I guess they should stop thinking about it, then. Just a suggestion.

What do you keep whining about then? If you're not into SL as a dating pool and you're not emotionally involved, who is this person/persons whom you claim keep getting "hurt" because they can't bear not to have full real life info on everyone they may possibly get a crush on?

/me calls strawman argument and then sets fire to said strawman.

Careful, that strawman might be a strawwoman.

You don't think it hurts to have someone demand you go on voice?

You don't think it hurts to have someone demand you go on voice to prove who they are?
Again, I ask you, do you REALLY believe that's what every guy playing a dame (or broad playing a dude) is doing it for? Seriously?

Which leads into this bit:
Not even *talk to*?

Either they have serious psychological problems and ought to consider whether they should be spending time on the Internet at all (and that probably goes for your friends who claim gays make them physically ill, too), or they're both (a) on the make, and (b) jerks.

Actually, the subject came up because California just voted on whether our constitution should say that MARRIAGE is between one man and one woman so the subject has come up in conversations recently and before that. The majority voted "yes" California's state constitution should say that. I'm sure you've heard of it.

And actually the quote was wrong. My boyfriend said "when I think of two men doing it, it makes me want to vomit." He was in the rock n roll world. He's seen everything, but that doesn't mean he did everything. You don't think a hot guy in the rock n roll world gets everything you can image handed to them on a silver platter? Well, they do. From every drug or sex you could imagine.

My boyfriend before this one experimented with a male to male sexual interlude and said it wasn't all he expected and kept losing his erection.

I know a lot of musicians and these past few years this topic of anal sex has come up. My rl bf says that's where stuff exits, not enters. A lot of people, men included only want penile/vaginal sex -- lots of pleasure zones built in there.

Again, there really are heterosexual males and females. I'm not attracted to a girl in the least. No attraction feelings arise or are aroused. I've been asked to in rl and nothing was aroused by the thought or from the asking.

(and if you haven't been following this thread, my comment was first made because it was said "all men fantasize about it anyway and want to experiment with it." Which is THAT POSTER'S POINT OF VIEW, but not true of the men I know nor really works as an excuse to go to SL in drag to see how many heterosexual men you can get because you believe in YOUR mind every man wants it anyways. Which is not a truism, but smacks of ego-tripping.)

Avawyn,
Do you want have sex with every single guy you met?
I bet you don't.
Gay, lesbian, tg/ts people don't want to have sex with everyone and anybody
especially those not interested like yourself or your boyfriend.
Nor are they going to force just because they are into something to do it either.
I know very few gay guys who are actively haunting down straight guys for sex, if
they do it rare.
In fact the guys I knew who did the public sex in the city parks in the 1980s and 1990s were married heterosexuals looking for men to have sex with.

And this access to unlimited drugs and depraved, meaningless sex is supposed to impress us, oh ye defender of heterosexual sex and good and proper marriages between men and women only?

I call troll. A slow one, who took a while to get down to business, but a troll nonetheless. Thank you for showing your true colors. Now go back to hunching under your bridge.

I know what a penis is, thank you. No help needed there. I'd point out the existence of a prostate gland and what an extremely pleasurable zone that is, but you'd have to pull your own head out of something first to hear me.

Might need the jaws of life for that...

Okaaay ... nobody can help how they feel, but we can all help what we do with our feelings. If I felt like that I wouldn't be proud of it, and I certainly wouldn't use it as the basis for moralising about other people's behaviour, when that behaviour is ABSOLUTELY NONE OF MY BUSINESS. In fact, if I felt like that I would probably do a little soul-searching and try to discover why that might be ... I might just learn something.

Of course not everybody wants to have sex with people of the same gender. Nobody is making you do that or even saying you should. Actually, this is where I am a bit confused: you say it's your friends whose gender you want to verify, because you prefer to be friends with guys. Well, if you really can't tell the difference without making them do voice then perhaps it's not as important to you as you think it is.

I believe it is not uncommon for people with very conservative views and backgrounds to find the huge diversity in SL a bit much to cope with. There are other online communities where RL disclosure is much more the norm. Perhaps these conservative types might be happier there, among their own kind.

I said I was done with this thread, but this smug (yes, it reads as very smug) comment merits just one reply from me, which follows.

I respectfully suggest that you read this:

http://sfrajett.blogspot.com/2008/11/other-hand-taketh-away.html

Please do not glance at it, then ignore what it says. Take ten minutes out of your life and read those words. Try to understand what they are telling you. Try to understand the reasons why gay people want the ability to be regarded as legal partners in the eyes of the law. We don't want to prance around in some 'let's pretend we're married' pseudo-Happy Families scenario. Long-term same-sex partners just want the same treatment in the eyes of the law that long-term heterosexual partners have. Heterosexual marriages do not need to be *defended* against us. We do not *threaten* heterosexual marriages in any way.

Allow me to quote one small passage from that blog post:And now I really am done with this thread. If you come back to this with anything that even resembles a 'but', after reading that, then I really don't know what else I can say to you. In fact, I have nothing more to say to you.

Forget about SL and gender switching and all that crap. The real issue is that some of us feel that it's wrong to befriend somebody knowing full well that they wouldn't want to befriend you if they knew certain details that you was keeping hidden. Like that big penis in your pants for example. But that's just an example!. It could quite easily be other things like having murdered your family or being a fan of the Bee Gees.

It's selfish to befriend somebody knowing that they're probably making certain assumptions about you.

It wont hurt to just say "Oh and btw, I hope you wont be offended but I love Barry Gibb"

Oh that is so blown out of proportion. We have legal domestic partnerships in California and couple's whether hetero or homo can enter into a domestic partnership and share everything just like a married couple, tho there is no marriage. They are what is called domestic partners and can share health benefits, death benefits, car insurance for a two car family, everything. I don't know about each state, but I've never seen that happen in a hospital???

As far as why marriage should remain between one man and one woman is because a heterosexual couple is NOT LEGALLY MARRIAGE UNTIL CONSUMMATION THROUGH SEXUAL INTERCOURSE occurs. A marriage, where a marriage ceremony took place is not a legal marriage IF NO consummation via sexual intercourse took place. A marriage not consummated can be annulled; no divorce is necessary if no consummation took place.

The reasons I am against same sex marriage are:

If anal intercourse IS considered consummation, then that gives a heterosexual man the right to do that to a woman. I don't like the thought of men having that as a "right" to do that to a woman in a marriage.

Another is the children: What are you going to teach them in schools in sex ed about what sexual intercourse is? It's with a plastic thing or a cucumber? Come on, I don't think the definitions of consummation or sexual intercourse should be changed and taught to children.

Go to encarta now and look up the legal definition of consummation and the definition of sexual intercourse and get back to me.

And if any state doesn't have domestic partnerships, I'd be surprised and that's wrong.

Next, I'm not for gay marriage because then others with sexual preferences, polygamists, people wanting to marry cousins, family members, whatever should have their supposed legal rights too.

But don't forget we are NOT born with the legal right to marry, we are born with the privilege to marry. Anything that requires a license is a privilege not a right. For instance, we are born with the privilege to practice medicine but not the right.

However, none of these "scare" scenarios happen in California. There are full domestic partnerships available for both hetero and homosexual couples who want to share benefits and everything else but it will not change the wording of consummation nor sexual intercourse.

And watch, this post will most likely get edited or deleted, but this is what you want to teach children in schools or elsewhere regarding sex education??? It's like, brush it under the rug, but teach it to children in schools. That just doesn't make sense.

Conservative? No, I'm a Democrat and so is my rl bf. So is my Mom. There isn't a Republican bone in our bodies. Surprise, not all Democrats are for gay marriage. You're sterotyping people. And surprise, Bill Clinton wrote The Defense of Marriage Act which I believe will be pushed thru by Obama, a Democrat. Why, because 31 states have voted now in favor of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman. The 31 states might be all that's needed now to push The Defense of Marriage Act through and again by someone not considered conservative.

If you think I'm conservative, WRONG! I hang out with people of different sexual preferences all day on SL and in RL. But that doesn't mean I am for gay marriage. Same sex unions I would vote in favor of, though I know other Dem's who wouldn't.

Well, he's got as much right to do that as have vaginal intercourse ... i.e. with the partner's consent - why not? (unless consent within marriage is not part of the law where you live?) If you don't like the thought, then as Daros says, why not just stop thinking about it?



Sex can be all sorts of things. Ideally, I think kids should be taught that whatever they are, or choose to do in bed, is OK as long as it's between consenting adults. In any case kids generally manage to work it out for themselves no matter what we do or don't teach them.



Oh NO!!! I've been doing it wrong half the time!!!



Well, there are laws against close family incest which are sensible because any offspring are much more likely to be born with disabilities, but beyond that, if it's all consenting adults, why not? How does it even affect you?



In the UK we have only recently had Civil Partnerships (commonly referred to as gay marriages because that is where the vast majority of the uptake is). Before that, same sex couples did indeed suffer all sorts of problems when it came to inheritance and family laws. I would hate to see civil partnerships disappear because of a few people who don't like to think about what gay people choose to do in bed.

Oh hell, why am I even bothering answering this drivel?

I didn't mean Conservative with a big "C" as in party politics. I take little interest in that, especially not American politics, except inasmuch as the fallout affects the rest of us. I meant conservative with a small "c". Your views, to me at least, come across as conservative.

OK, had enough of this ghastly thread now. Byeee x

Well California has had domestic partnerships available for same sex couples for decades. I can't comment on other states or the U.K. because I don't know their laws or what wording they exactly changed. But same sex civil unions I believe will eventually pass in America. Same Sex Marriage? It's my gut feeling that I kind of doubt it as the vote stands right now because America is a country of the people by the people for the people, not a country of the Queen or King nor of the judges by the judges for the judges. Unionized, yes, change the marriage laws regarding consummation via sexual intercourse? I don't think that's going to happen. But I do see a lot of political posturing for votes while using gays, and I think that is wrong.

Let's deal with the legal terms of consummation via sexual intercourse making a marriage legal first. If those terms are changed to archaic and consummation then becomes a ceremony and vows, then the marriage laws would be changed. However, this could cause problems with just friends wanting to marry to get benefits and could cause problems with immigration too as they don't need to be in love, they can just be platonic married friends in order to share benefits.

But it's like the politicians are putting the cart before the horse here without disclosing the actual terms of what makes a marriage legal. What makes a marriage legal in America is not a ceremony nor vows. A marriage becomes legal upon CONSUMMATION VIA SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Once that occurs, a couple is then legally married and the rules of divorce now apply if they want to separate.

How many hospitals have you worked in where you might have seen this happen? In between your stints of boinking rock stars, that is. Or maybe it happened when you were visiting Mr Guitar Hero for his latest overdose-on-the-toilet episode.



Consummation means very little to the state, as far as the legality of proceedings and contracts. Not legally married until they have sex? Can't be annulled if they had sex? Oh yes they can. What century do you live in? Annulments can be gotten even if there were children born to the marriage, and those children are still considered legitimate. You can obtain a declaration of nullity for cases of fraud and bigamy as well, or if you're a Catholic you can exercise the Canonical privileges, should that be the case. There are dozens of reasons for nullifying a marriage, but fear of gay sex isn't a legal one, I'm afraid. Yawn yawn. Stop getting your history from bad Harlequin romance novels.



Well to begin with, you'd have to believe that a husband has a right to penetrate his wife whether she wants it or not on their wedding night. If so, I pity you, but I pitied you before so it's a short leap. To me, it sounds like you don't even want MEN and WOMEN having buttsecks, even if they consent and want to! Oh my! I get it! It's not SL you want to order to your Sarah Palin worldview, it's RL too! Take cover, you perverts!

What makes a marriage legal in America is applying for a marriage license "in good faith" and later filing said witnessed and signed license with the Clerk of the County Court. After you have filed, you cannot simply walk into the Courthouse, say "We never screwed" and get it annulled on the spot. You will need a lot more than that. Try it. If you can tear Mr Idol away from bagging his quota of bimbos this month, that is.

Consider it dealt with.



Next time, don't use Wikipedia for your legal advice.

Originally Posted by http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Consummation+of+marriage
CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE. The first time that the husband and wife cohabit together, after the ceremony of marriage has been performed, is thus called.

2. The marriage, when otherwise legal, is complete without this; for it is a maxim of law, borrowed from the civil, law, that consensus, non concubitus, facit nuptias. Co. Litt. 33; Dig. 50, 17, 30; 1 Black. Com. 434.

-A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

_________________________________________________

Excuse me, but you don't seem to understand what this definition is saying. It means for a marriage to be legal in America the sexual intercourse was consented to not forced. A marriage cannot begin by rape or with one's "concubine" if the concubine did not consent. This law was to protect young women and is quite archaic in today's society.

This law further states that if the marriage WAS consummated VIA CONSENT there are no means for annulment, except for bigamy or under the church. I thought that was a given since I was discussing civil unions and that is common knowledge. Or so I thought. It's a given knowledge to me regarding bigamy or the Roman Catholic Church.

Basically that law is saying if a women or a men consents to have sexual intercourse after their marriage ceremony they cannot then claim they made a mistake. I can add that in here in the latin from the 1800's if you'd like.

And this law probably had to do with virgins. I gather it was written in the 1800's that if a female, love, concubine, slave, virgin CONSENTED to have sexual intercourse AFTER the marriage ceremony she could not claim she made a mistake and be reinstated as a virgin. Quite archaic law you're going in to.