Does liking shemales make you gay?

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by McLuvinladyboys

. its simple, the cock
so we have a fascination for cock. thats what it is, we all wish that our daintly girls had throbing members.

I'm not going to explain it to you. Bionca and I have done that before on many a post. But you are so wrong. You like shemales, not for the "male" but for the "she".

[McLuvinladyboys]

Originally Posted by franalexes

I'm not going to explain it to you. Bionca and I have done that before on many a post. But you are so wrong. You like shemales, not for the "male" but for the "she".

dunno bout that. look around and you will usually hear(see) the guys here talking about one certian aspect of the shemale. her cock. there must be a thousand threads on here about it.
if we were interested in the SHE we would be with bio girls. so while we are interested in the she, we are also interested in the male parts as well.
since you dont want to explain it, or shoot me a link to another post where you or bionca do explain it, i cant really give you anymore than this. i dont know what your arguement against cock interest would be(does that make sense)

we like the she shape, but we also like the he organ, like i said its pretty simple, we all want out women with cocks, other wise we would just go get bio girls

[javabox]

Originally Posted by franalexes

I'm not going to explain it to you. Bionca and I have done that before on many a post. But you are so wrong. You like shemales, not for the "male" but for the "she".

Doubt it. If the poster liked shemales not for the male, but for the she (meaning, just for the she), then he could simplify his life immensely by only focusing on cisgirls. There are so many more of them ... at last count, more than half the people on the planet fall into that category. A lot more options. But it doesn't seem to be the case that people who like shemales like them specifically for either the male or the she. They like them for the both-ness.

Of course, I could be wrong. Like the original poster, I'd welcome a link to a thread where your point of view is spelled out in more detail.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by javabox

Doubt it. If the poster liked shemales not for the male, but for the she (meaning, just for the she), then he could simplify his life immensely by only focusing on cisgirls. There are so many more of them ... at last count, more than half the people on the planet fall into that category. A lot more options. But it doesn't seem to be the case that people who like shemales like them specifically for either the male or the she. They like them for the both-ness.

Of course, I could be wrong. Like the original poster, I'd welcome a link to a thread where your point of view is spelled out in more detail.

As males, we know how how well our cock can produce pleasure. We know how much we enjoy females and their beautiful bodies. We know how good it is to have our cock inserted in a female. We put all of these feelings together when we view a beautiful shemale displaying her lovely cock, our mind tells us that this girl has special sexual attributes well beyond a regular female. All of her is female and all of her is desirable, including her female
cock. Biologically the male penis is analogous to the female clitoris.

[randolph]

A further comment.
Suppose a genetic female could get gene therapy on her genitalia that would transform her clitty into a functional penis. I suspect that we (men) would find it equally desirable as a transexual penis. Not only that, if she still had a pussey then she would be a hermaphrodite (futa. girl). How much fun would that be?

[Bionca]

Yes, you all are the faggiest fags who ever fagged a fag... happy?? Oh wait.. you are trying to save some bit of heterosexuality so that when WE get shit on YOU can stay nice and comfortably wrapped in your hetero-ness.

Here is the deal from my perspective - does it matter if you are? If it does, why? You are aware that most people who know will think you are? As someone who grew up assumed to be gay, who was very openly attracted to men in a male context, the very last thing I want is to be some closet for some guy. Maybe that's my lot in life if as a trans*woman, but I hope it isn't.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Here is the deal from my perspective - does it matter if you are?

Thanks, Bionca. I was just about to write something quite similar. As all of you ponder this question, consider what the world would be like if everyone could just live happily with whatever their attractions (so long as they aren't hurtful in the way child molestation is, for example), and everyone would be fine with the attractions of others. Labels of the sort being discussed in this thread are the type that keep us from ever getting past discrimination, as well as keep us from being able to embrace our true selves.

[javabox]

Originally Posted by Bionca

Here is the deal from my perspective - does it matter if you are?

Answering for myself? No. In my comment above, I was merely responding to a statement that Franalexes made ("You like shemales, not for the 'male' but for the 'she'"), and responding using the terms in which the statement was framed. That was not intended as a validation of those terms. The statement ("You like shemales, not for the 'male' but for the 'she'") seems as reductive, and as much an oversimplification, as if a het person were to take the opposite tack and say: "if you're attracted to a trans person, just accept that you're gay, and get on with life".

The point is that framing it as an either/or proposition is not going to work. The conventional categories themselves do not work. The premise and terms of the discussion itself lack validity.

Again though, I could be wrong, and I would be interested in reading the other posts to which Franalexes alluded.

[smc]

Originally Posted by javabox

... framing it as an either/or proposition is not going to work. The conventional categories themselves do not work.

You are absolutely right: framing it as an either/or does not work. I would contend that it should not work; in fact, I don't want it to work, because it leads us right back to labeling, or -- as you put it -- "conventional categories."

No one could rationally deny that there is a point in labels and categorization: it serves to make easier the understanding that all of us seek. But it has such a horrid downside.

What joy there is in coming around to just being who you are without anyone else defining it.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by javabox

Doubt it. If the poster liked shemales not for the male, but for the she (meaning, just for the she), then he could simplify his life immensely by only focusing on cisgirls. There are so many more of them ... at last count, more than half the people on the planet fall into that category. A lot more options. But it doesn't seem to be the case that people who like shemales like them specifically for either the male or the she. They like them for the both-ness.

Of course, I could be wrong. Like the original poster, I'd welcome a link to a thread where your point of view is spelled out in more detail.

I can relate to this, it seems that is what transsexual is all about. I signed on to this site because I like looking at transsexuals and fantasizing about sex with them. It seems that trying to intellectualize this lust is going to be futile, for me anyway.

Dear Bionca
love yourself
eat lots of blueberries
wear sexy clothes
you will be fine