Originally Posted by TheSkronkDonkey
bepitan has articulated a personal truth and way of seeing the world according to him. I like it.
Some wise words of caution have also been put forward, however. As ocinteeni just said: "a t-girl never really was a boy/guy she just simply had the appearance of a genetic male". This would probably be another personal truth for most t-girls.
But I still know what bepitan means and think there is some validity to what he said. The idea of a past history is very exciting. While sexual attraction and sexual awareness are generally regarded as adult things, I actually see them as a kind of regression to a child-like state. In essence, you have primal fascination with body parts, shapes, colours, smells, textures etc. like a child. You are also compelled to fantasise and desiring of tactile contact and a certain "living out" of your inner compulsions, again, much like a child. Finally, in the act of sexual enjoyment, which I would personally define as consenting contact between two or more individuals, you are experiencing something physical that connects to some of the deepest parts of your psyche -- parts that would otherwise remain suppressed and unfulfilled, as the adult world is keen to force upon you. Sexual attraction is the great equaliser.
Thus, past history can be a very intoxicating idea, when you are driven to imagine what a person was like growing up, whatever their sex, gender or orientation was or currently is (and whatever your sex, gender or orientation was or currently is). In the case of t-girls, I think it CAN be fun, exciting and arousing to imagine a certain "maleness" transitioning into a kind of "femaleness", mentally, physically, emotionally and what have you. In so doing, you are crossing social boundaries and breaking social taboos, which is a powerful stimulant in the minds of many, if not all, human beings. But you are also -- hopefully, that is -- acknowledging the power of self-actualisation in the human animal itself, venerating the object of your sexual desire (say, a person or a group of persons) and also yourself (for daring to buck trends and actually find all of this so attractive and arousing). In all of this, I am greatly simplifying, over-generalising and guessing. Psychology is invariably and perpetually both subtle and complex.
The veneration aspect is interesting, as I think it's also tied to narcissism. That is, in all the times you've ever become aroused and/or masturbated, think of the times you may have, in some abstract way if nothing else, actually been attracted to yourself. This is a potentially awkward and very solipsistic idea, I know. I'm sure not many people want to go here, but for those that do, think and think hard (pardon the pun). Have you ever caught sight of yourself in a mirror or made a recording and watched it back or done or felt something where you were the object of your own desire, if only for a nanosecond or two? Maybe, in some or all of these occasions, or maybe in none of these but some totally separate occasions, you have also wondered what it would be like to suck a cock or fuck yourself in the ass or something equally self-serving. But then those feelings went away. Or you tried to redirect them onto sucking another guy's cock or fucking them in the ass but it didn't hold appeal. Well, in an oddly fitting sense, t-girls offer a solution to this riddle. It is possible, at least, in theory, to live out those fantasies in an agreeable form. You can both pleasure someone (and take pleasure in the pleasuring) and be pleasured (and take pleasure in the being pleasured) by someone who is neither yourself nor unacceptably "too male", but who you imagine to intuitively understand your needs and your ways because they share the same basic equipment (even though neither of these conditions is necessarily true in reality).
It's a very peculiar thing. How much basis any of this actually has in reality I don't know. I'm no Freud -- and many people disavow him.
Maybe it's more accurate to apply bepitan's basic sentiment to gay sex -- which might be more comfortably (for the benefit of bepitan and others) be termed bisexual or polysexual or even pansexual attraction, with respect to the individual and his or her own proclivities. That is, during the times I look at porn featuring just males (and they are more frequent than they used to be), I am given to imagining what bepitan just said. I guess there is an enormous fantasy element to all sex, referring to what I wrote earlier. It can actually be pretty exciting for me to imagine fucking a teenaged or 20-something boy that "used to play football" (to use that same cliche) or who maybe just a few minutes ago has, provided I am still able to process their current mindset in terms of something feminine and submissive (although I am in no way meaning to imply I conflate them with being a t-girl, because I don't). Now, I don't mean to take anyone down a path they don't wish to go down, but actually try this for a second. Try to think of a male (in my case, it has to be a young male, at least, it currently does) and try to think of them lying down and wanting to be played with and fucked and enjoyed in "cute" and "fun" ways, not quite as the actual males or masculine figures you're familiar with in everyday life. It's only a subtle difference for me, but it's also one that allows me to engage in this thinking and enjoy it. I offer no rational explanation for any of this, beyond further ruminations as crude as those I've already presented. It's just something that "feels good".
When I look at pictures and videos of t-girls/shemales, there are differing complexions and bodies on display, as well as differing attitudes and approaches. Some are quiet, others are loud. Some are soft, some are aggressive. Some are very "feminine" in appearance, others are very "masculine". As such, I'm given to imagining slightly different things in slightly different contexts. If I'm looking at a cute ladyboy with a small body and retiring demeanour, I might imagine a lot of tenderness and stroking. If I'm looking at a more square-jawed t-girl with broad shoulders, big boobs and a dominant personality, I might imagine more forcefulness and kinkiness. But again, I'm massively over-generalising (about myself, never mind anything or anyone else). So much is rooted in fantasy, so little in cold, hard reality. However, if it's the latter scenario, or if it's even a ladyboy who just looks more "male" in the face and has, for example, noticeably veiny hands, a muscular stomach or whatever else, I may (note: may) imagine them as still "almost male", as essentially a "cute boy having fun", even if that isn't commensurate with reality and may not even be that different as a fantasy archetype to a "fully feminine" t-girl. Again, it's all rather subtle and complicated. I only know what I feel at the instant I feel it. Everything else is unreality.
A super-attractive girl that magically has a penis is not an inherently attractive idea -- or, more accurately, necessarily as attractive as the stereotypical thinking sometimes exhibited on this community suggests it should be. It's not an unattractive idea, but neither is it hyper-compelling. This is all for me, of course. Your perspective could be different. There must, therefore, be something about my attraction to t-girls, or the majority of my attraction the majority of the time, that is rooted in appreciating them for "once being male" or still possessing "male attributes", however significant or trivial. Maybe, for instance, I like the idea of lean arms and legs (males have less body fat). Maybe I like the idea of sweat and taste (males have a different endocrine system). Maybe I like the idea of smaller, tighter asses (again, less body fat). Or bigger hands and feet (males are bigger). That's the physical side. It's also the "now" side, as opposed to bepitan's idea that the penis is "the last remaining vestige" (or whatever) of a "male past". So, maybe, in some configurations, I like the idea not only of a past, but also a present. A physical present and even a mental present. But a physical and mental present that isn't, or aren't, necessarily symmetrical with a physical and mental past. I could just be talking a load of BS here. Looking back on my own post history, I always tend to fawn over "feminine" t-girls, so maybe it *is* just the feminine ones I like best. But, in any case ... it's OK for us all to be neither one thing or another. To exist on a spectrum. To sit still or to streak between different points along it. That's what life is and what makes it so interesting. See my signature.
|