As You Like It - Men Becoming Women

It's not her pants I'd be looking at.

Who knows *what* 431... is interested in?

Pep (Too tired to correct that grammatical error)

Sorry to burst you bubble Ricardo but you are clearly clueless when it comes to this topic. The vast majority of those who are transgendered and transsexuals are NOT gay.

True most of the male to female crossdressers or ts I know are attracted to women as women and have no interested in the typical male/female type of intimacy.
The other way around there some of us who want to be with Men but as Men but it is rarer.
Then there some who only want to be with people like themselves and have no interest in GGs or GBs ie means genetic girl or boys.
Gay men don't alter their bodies hormonally, surgically to become women, majority don't desire to cross dress. The majority these days want to be and be with super masculine men or straight acting gay men that doesn't mean the men are heterosexual though that they are with.

That's rather open to debate.

What you said probably holds true for transvestite/cross-dressing males. Many, in my experience, at least *claim* to be exclusively heterosexual. In fact, one of the definitions of transvestite is "cross-dressing, male-bodied, male identified, heterosexual persons".

The safest thing to say is that transgendered (including transsexuals and transvestites) exhibit as large a range of sexual preferences as cis-gendered. Gender identity is not necessarily linked with sexuality.

To make it more difficult, would you consider their sexuality in terms of their birth gender (which they would probably reject) or their 'target' gender? For example, if a trans-woman (Male-to-Female) considers herself a woman, and is attracted to men, is she gay or straight? She'd more than likely consider herself a straight female.

Gay men value their outies, I don't think they be into getting things removed
and getting their outies turned into innies.
Even fantasy would gross them out for majority.
Gay men don't have sex changes to be Gay unless they were born biologically
women who identify as men who happen to be only attracted to Gay or bisexual men who want to function as Men.
But those type of Men are so rare, majority don't even think they exist or care.

OMG, might just be me but my eyes crossed and I had to read this 3 times to follow (no pun intended) the bouncing ball.

Luv ya as always FD and hope you have friends and family for tomorrow. If not stop into the forums here and we will cheer you up!

Thanks for kind comment Jesse. I think...haha.
I am struggling to build something and I am so tired and out of it my thanksgiving
dinner gazebo doesn't look quite right.
I am grateful I have one friend come by tomorrow, I never got married or wasn't able to have children and what family I had I lost over the years due to a gender change and other personal issues.
I know you and many don't get it but imagine you're attracted to guys but not female
identified, and want to be guy....there is whole host of issues no one ever thinks of in that
category and it just doesn't matter really because most people don't get it.
Most people only get what they are into and their own desires.
Sorry but being so blunt but "outies" seem out weigh innies whenever discussions of
gender and sexuality come up, not quite sure why that is or at least where I am sitting.
Come on who doesn't find a outie and traditional masculinity a requirement if they are guy or into guys a significant and majorly important functional must have in the equipment and gender identity of men? Isn't a innie is requirement plus certain feminine
features often is requirement for one's attraction or what labels females?
Yet for some reason some females with something extra can be fetishisized in public culture and desired more often or worried about whole lot more then invisible or unknown guy who is missing something. Why is that? Is it because he is missing a outie?
Worse yet anything that doesn't fit the heterosexual view of masculinity automatically gay even if the individual may label themselves something else. How would you know what they are and what right is it of anyone else to label them Gay or homosexual?
They may be none of above or something else.
How many would you truthfully date or be intimate with someone with parts that don't match regardless of your sexual orientation?
I bet very few of you would truthfully be it in sl or rl. It would be too confusing for your perceived normal view of reality or what normal intimate expression would be. It is okay to be close minded in that regard. I won't label you bigots. LOL
It may not be fair at times but outies often seem whole lot more important if it is requirement for certain gender and sexual expressions.
But BS like this makes my life very hard to find partners be it in sl or rl unless I createda alt and lied.
I choose to be celibate whether I want to or not it just easier.
If you get to express your sexuality and enjoy it in whatever fashion be grateful there some freedom and options for you to do so because it isn't that easy for everyone.
I am rambling probably incoherently and none of you get this.
Be thankful for all the little, big and major freedoms you're able to express someone some where may not have those freedoms or luxuries you take for granted.
Have good Thursday or Thanksgiving to those who celebrate that.
FD

I am thankful this thread continues with such interesting replies. Happy thanksgiving to all of you men out there who are women! and all you women out there who look after the men, and all teh women who take care of women. And to everyone else I havent mentioned!

Not all is lost FD I know I could date a pre-op/non-op transman - see i've nothing against men, just their genitalea... We lezzers love you too. *hugs*

I totally sympathize.

Most of time truthfully be it innies or outies most time I find both pretty much unappealing and disgusting but for some reason I am more interested in masculinity but I do care more about what is inside the person's mind and personality then what is under their clothing or how they look I guess which is odd to lot of people who are either look,innie or outie or something else centered.
I have my energy exchange cravings at times but it not things you can do in SL or online with strangers but truthfully I am just never been wired to be sexual, but I did spend years really trying be it for work or social reasons.
Years before I was me that I am today I tried to do the Lesbian thing for about 7 years or so I think I failed lesbianism or something, just didn't seem to work I like men too much to fit in leather dyke separatist mentality or they didn't want me around maybe they sensed my male energy damaging the collective or something.
I don't like my own outies or innies but I don't have $ or health means to do the surgery last surgery I almost died.
Personally I don't like having to be around anyone else's innies and all the functions that go with them just too many bad memories but I think women are beautiful, wonderful people as long as I never have to see them undressed or have to smell certain things during certain time of the month.
I makes me want to puke. But there things about Men that equally disgusting and gross too.
I guess I am strange.
I find both genders and all the genders in middle equally sexually disgusting and revolting, including my own unless their something magical to transcend all the things I find very gross. LOL.
But you know what I don't think I am the exception, I think there are more people out there who wired to not have the typical or no sexual orientation.

I never got a chance to get back to you Pie. First off, I was fed up with the trolls in this thread, not you. Too many to handle and sorry you thought that I meant you.

Actually, you had an honest question, but I thought this not the place for theology. I offered to take the debate to another forum.

Anyhow, I will answer your question.

First, Christianity has many different doctrines. For instance, some (mostly or only Roman) Catholics believe there is no salvation outside of the church (the Roman Catholic Church). In America, there are different types of Catholicism not related to the Roman Catholic church.

As for me, I am a Protestant, non-denominational Christian. I believe there is no salvation outside of Christ not "the church".

I also believe in once saved always saved. That Jesus paid our debt in full and there is nothing we can do to earn our way into Heaven. I also believe that we are all equally sinners and all equally loved by God. Not one is blameless, no not one. All of my doctrines can be backed up with biblical scriptures, so it's not a new doctrine.

As far as biblical doctrines go though, in the old testament it wasn't a ceremony or a ring that made a marriage. If a man and woman had sexual intercourse, they WERE MARRIED. They just jumped in the sack and got married via the spilling of the virgin blood of a woman. The virgin blood of a woman is very interesting to me and how it sealed or made a marriage because all God's covenants are blood covenants.

Next, I am with my ex husband. We were married. We still feel married. The divorce was a mistake, not the marriage. However, that doesn't mean I am parading around with a bottle of white out in my hand and asking people to white out parts of The Bible to suit my choice.

The Bible clearly states that marriage is one man and one woman, as do most other religious books.

I see this as a freedom of religion issue and a humanitarian issue. To me, the humanitarian part would be to have same sex unions because it is completely secular and leaves the churches and religious/holy books out of it. Yet that doesn't mean I don't believe GBLT cannot be Christians. Of course they can. It just depends upon what doctrine they have understood, studied and chosen for themselves. If they believe once saved always saved by Christ and that he paid their price in full, then they are with Christ in their hearts.

To the person above who keeps calling me an idiot and quoting things by Ben Franklin who was deist has nothing to do with anything except prove my points that The United States of America stands upon freedom of religion. A deist who views God via nature or is also called "a naturist" has nothing to do with anything whatsoever except prove this country stands for freedom of religion and that is constitutional. I mentioned that America was a Christian country because our daily lives revolve around The Bible... seven days a week, the 10 Commandments, witnesses for our legal system, etc, etc... all kinds of things we do daily come directly from scripture. If someone was a deist, so what, I am a bit of a deist too, I see God through nature quite a bit (doesn't matter), but deism doesn't take away the fact that America society and our daily lives are built around Christian fundamentals as well as certain freedoms to practice our Christianity or other religions and certain freedoms outside of religion.

Franklin was not a Christian, neither was Jefferson , nor many others of the founding fathers.

The Union was not founded by Christians. The Constitution was not based on the Christian religion. No matter how many times you claim otherwise, it's not true. I grew up in a country where the head of State and the head of the Church were the same person, and there really is a huge fundamental difference between that and the US government.

You're trying to roll back the American Revolution. The people who wrote the Constitution you think you understand would not thank you for it.

Believe what you want to believe. I don't believe George Washington would appreciate your comments since he was pastor and had Bible readings for his troops during the Revolutionary War.

Your deflections don't hold much water.

Another point: Vaginal/penile intercourse and anal intercourse are not one in the same. How can they be when one can produce a life but the other cannot? Therefore, I don't see any "equality" here for consummation of marriage as being "whatever" nor to teach our children in schools that they are one in the same, i.e. "equal" to each other. Nor is it clear enough that if these are equal forms of consummation does that give a heterosexual man the right to chose which intercourse he prefers for consummation? This could cause a lot of problems with some brides wanting or needing a prenup on what consummation and sexual intercourse means within THEIR marriage.

In short, the best way to view this is that we agree to disagree. I'm pretty concerned about other matters too, such as America's elderly. I need to move on and wish you the best in whatever it is you are seeking.

He was willing to associate with the likes of Jefferson, so I suspect that he was a bit more broad-minded than you.

As for the rest of your message... I have not commented on anal intercourse in this thread and decline to start now. Since I have no experience with it, I do not feel competant to speculate on the subject, and in any case there are plenty of participants who have answered you and more than answered you on that topic.

I don't understand what deism or naturism has to do with The United States of America's constitutional rights to freedom of religion? It only seems to verify my beginning points a long time ago in this thread, not nullify my point?

This is what as know as a circular argument and this is why people just need to agree to disagree.

And I bring up anal intercourse because THIS IS THE PIVOTAL ISSUE as to whether the gay marriages that occurred in the state of California will be annulled (voided) or not? This WILL BE the focal point as to whether these marriages that took place in the State of California will be recognized as legal consummated marriages however uncomfortable it may or may not be to discuss.

I'm expecting the marriages will be annulled, and it is gut wrenching for all and no I won't be celebrating but rather wondering what those families are going to do now?

You don't know me or my heart, though you think you do. If the vote went NO on Proposition 8 in California I was fully ready to embrace that decision. Yet still not sure if it infringes upon freedom of religion among the other topics I've brought up in this discussion that still go answered for me as a woman who wants to know about her certain "equal rights" regarding what sexual intercourse is then and what a heterosexual man then has equal rights too define sexual intercourse "as?" and how will sexual intercourse be described to our children in school "as?"....?

You say yourself and others have defined the above questions already. And thus, we agree to disagree.

It's only the focal point if you believe that the Constitution of the United States is founded upon the Christian Religion... AND if you believe the Christian Religion requires a woman to engage in anal intercourse if homosexual marriage were to be allowed.

As to the former point, I find it odd that a group with so broad a set of religious views would draft a document that would disenfranchise any among them.

And as to the latter... I am moderately familiar with the works of the Disciples and the Apostle Paul, and even with the other Saint John, and I can not for the life of me bring to mind any verse on the subject, nor any that might be turned to that interpretation.

As I said, I am not an expert on the practice in question, nor can I say I have ever thought to search for commentary on the subject in the New Testament, but I must admit that I would be astonished to be proven wrong.

Oh, holy cheese whiz!

TAKE IT TP PM PLEASE!!!!!!


plzkkthzbi!!!111oneone1!!

Wow this thread sure devolved.

You know, I have a real problem with some people in SL. The ones in question are very loud too. They are extremely adamant about expressing their darker, dirtier selves and flaunting this like some social revelation, but are very VERY intolerant of anyone else's pursuits if they arent along the same dark n dirty lines.

If a guy wants to run around as a woman, who are any of you to judge them? And what makes you think they all behave the same? What makes anyone pointing the finger any better? Why haven't they put down women who choose to use male avs here? Why is any sort of crossdressing an issue with them? It sounds very bigoted.

For those looking for fake sex and fleeting experiences and express assorted hangups: WHO CARES what's on the other side? You're not there for the RL contact. If the poseball does its thing and the partner is hot and says the right things, and the conditions are perfect for getting off, where's the problem? Aren't most of these types shrugging the experience as not being real while their spouses and significant others are watching TV in the next room anyway? Why the hipocrisy?

If there's one thing this thread has confirmed, it's that self-expression and diversity do not walk hand in hand. It's the same old intolerance and discrimination song. It's all the same old same old but with a new affiliation to call superior.

It's old already.

QFT! Very VERY well said, Holo. This post wins the internet. (^_^)y

/me notes that dancing does NOT apparently lead to post-marital sex.

Pep (Which is why you'll always find me in the kitchen at parties, not on the dance floor)

PS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62eTq8ErUOQ