shemale anal orgasm

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

It's a linguistic trap. Never ask a question with a negative in it as can be interpreted in one of two ways. The originator and receiver will most likely interpret it in opposite ways and hence also misinterpret the answer.

What trap? The OP implied by omission that something was unnatural or abnormal, and I take issue with that. He was given ample opportunity to clarify and did not.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

What trap? The OP implied by omission that something was unnatural or abnormal, and I take issue with that. He was given ample opportunity to clarify and did not.

The linguistic trap was in your question that I put in bold in the quote. You asked a question with a negative in it. A question with a negative will usually lead to confusion in the answer.

[wxhluyp]

I LOVE the thought of a feminine person achieving orgasm exclusively through being penetrated. It is sadly a spectacle i've never witnessed of yet. I wish it was easier to orgasm via the prostate, as if the anal passage was erogenous

[sosed]

It's really quite simple. Forget the "biology rules" -- those have been subverted by the desire to assign definitiveness to gender roles. Here's what matters for our discussion. Do you want to state that a female who has the sexual desire to penetrate and impregnate is UNNATURAL or ABNORMAL, or do you accept that these desires in a female are as NATURAL and NORMAL as they are in a male? Conversely, do you accept that a male's desire to be penetrated is perfectly NATURAL and NORMAL? I hope so, because I think about being penetrated every single day, and you don't want to be suggesting that I am unnatural or abnormal, now, do you?

What do you mean with "forget biology rules"? We are really talking about different things here. You talk here about personal desires and wishes. As I said, every person is unicum and all sexual desires and wishes are normal an natural. I hope we agree on this. What I'm talking about, is synchronization between body and brain. The basis for all female beings, animal and human, is maternity, for this role their bodies and brains are created and wired by nature or by God, if you are religious, the same as male bodies and brains are for paternity. So female brains and bodies are created and wired for penetration and impregnation to get children, for maternity and maternity is normal and natural for females and I hope we agree here. Genetic woman have female body and female brains, genetic male have male body and male brains. Transperson unfortunately is not synchronized and have either male brains in female body either female brains in male body. Transwoman is a woman and she feels in herself, she is a woman, because she have female brains. The point in my questions is, that her female brains are naturally wired for maternity, but male body is naturally created for paternity. I'm not talking here about what she likes in bed and if this is natural or not, but how her body compensate this difference inside her. For example if you become blind, other sensors become sharper, because body in that way try to compensate the lost of eyes. The point is if her body compensate the lack of vagina and female genitals, bay making her anus more sensitive for sexual stimulations and pleasure, because her brains and female being is wired for maternity.

About female you stated here, we have two options. One is, that it is just her sexual desire, although not very often in females, still normal and natural. The other option here is, that she is actually male inside female body. I could not say more, because i don't know her and I don't know the case.

Of course there are males, who like to be penetrated and in sexuality it is normal and natural, but their bodies and brains are still naturally created and wired for paternity. I hope you understand the difference here, about which I'm talking about.

[Naked Freedom]

Many a times i have ignored such posts, and have not replied......
I feel sorry for sosed that the question he asked was completely taken in the wrong sense, smc is being too strict at moderation. People sometimes dont get the correct word to express themselves. As far as i can understand that is what has happened with sosed. a simple PM to him 'asking him whether he meant most instead of natural' wud have sufficed ....instead of overshadowing the actual question to which sosed wanted answers, so far no one had taken offense to what sosed wrote...simple PM and he cud have reframed his question....but now after reading his last post it appears that he is frustrated with smc cornering him over his question.
Please don't create a hostile environment on this forum....let's live with peace
I urge smc who has done a lot of good moderation in the past to help maintain a friendly atmosphere here on this forum.

[smc]

Thank you, sosed, for clarifying your meaning. Thank you, Naked Freedom, for putting the exchange and my posts in perspective.

I want to make clear to that my responses to sosed were in no way aimed at setting a "trap" or "overshadowing" his question, and certainly were not aimed at creating a hostile environment. Rather, they were motivated by a militancy about ungendering that I must temper. I realize that sosed's intent was not to ungender, but the words "natural" and "normal" must be used very, very carefully. My concern is that if we start our discussions from false assumptions that I inferred from how sosed posed his question, we render the answer to be equally false. My way of approaching a post that jumps out in this way brings out the professor in me, which is often not the optimal persona for anonymous, online discussions. (It works quite well in a classroom setting, where my students see my smile and hear the tone of my voice and know I am challenging them to achieve a higher distillation of their thinking, not trying to beat them down.)

So, chastened, I will strive to take Naked Freedom's much-appreciated advice.

I would like to clarify one thing further. Naked Freedom writes that "so far no one had taken offense to what sosed wrote." One should not make the assumption that the absence of posts in the discussion means the absence of responses. I would not speak for the other moderators, but there are a number of members on this site who post infrequently (if at all) who write PMs to me about posts that raise questions for them or are disturbing in one way or another. I encourage members to post, but they do not always do so. In this case, I did receive some PMs about what sosed wrote.

[Naked Freedom]

Thanks, smc for giving a thought to my advise. I know as a moderator its ur job.
As for Sosed, as all misunderstandings have been clarified, I welcome you back to the discussion to what it actually was.