Your video, Tucker Carlson mad about being less sexually attracted MnMs, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

@bobknight33

It's interesting how trump having sex with his own daughter is becoming part of the culture


"Get running
Start pumping your bunions, I'm coming
I'm the dumbest, who flamethrow your function to Funyuns
Flame your crew quicker than Trump fucks his youngest
Now face the flame, fuckers, your fame and fate's done with"




“Is it wrong to be more sexually attracted to your own daughter than your wife?” -Donald Trump

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tamerragriffin/trump-asked-if-its-wrong-to-be-attracted-to-his-daughter#.xgvP4GxxG

What a sicko, I'm glad pop-culture is starting to pick up on it. Prediction, Ivanka Trump will write a tell all about how her father sexually assaulted her as a child and no one will believe her and they'll say that she's just trying to ruin his reputation.

"Why is she trying to hurt a dead man's reputation? He only joked about it for decades and was close friends with Jeff Epstein, a known child sex trader."

And this is the brilliance of Louis -- that he lays bare the humanity of even pedophiles. The truth of pedophiles.

(They are doing research now that supports the idea that sexual attraction towards children is indeed hard-coded and a "natural" part of the human sexuality spectrum. If that turns out to be true... that opens up a huge can of worms that reflects back on our historical treatment of homosexuals. Chemical or actual castration? Permanent imprisonment? Creating more communities like that place in Florida that is populated with convicted child sex offenders? If there is no "cure," is capital punishment the only solution? I feel paralyzed by the implications.)

I'm not sure we should be sympathetic to convicted pedophiles, even if it is a brain disorder.

There was a scene in Nymphomaniac where the main character forces someone to admit they were a pedophile. When she's telling this to someone else later, her listener says something along the lines of "I hope you made him pay for being a pedophile."

She disagrees. When asked why, she says, "If someone is sexually attracted to children, and knows they're sexually attracted to children, but doesn't act on it because they know it's wrong and keeps it hidden, he deserves a medal."

At the end of the day, the convicted pedophile acted on his sexual desires, and forced themselves on a child. If the crossed-wire theory is true, this is akin to a man being sexually attracted to a woman who isn't interested, but forces himself on her anyway.

The problem of seeing it as a mental illness is that we're in danger of letting slide the fact that this person decided his desires were more important than the health and safety of another person. That's where the crime lies.

@newtboy
Firstly, people who worry about other people's sexual attraction to human adult non-relatives usually have sexual problems of their own. Therefore, they disqualify themselves to be taken seriously at that debate. The more you argue against the LGBT community, the more likely you are to be sexually harmful.

Secondly, dude, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I live in a country that faces a future where a majority of the population is senior citizens because we made it to expensive and impractical to even have children. I wish my government could do more to encourage women to have children and support them raising them without sacrificing their careers. Right now, my best hope for a nation that isn't dominated by senior citizens is immigration.
I'm less worried about global overpopulation in the west because we have (or at least should have) access to birth control.
The only people in the west that are willing to have more than a handful of kids are the religious nutjobs and the mentally questionable/ill. Here's something most women know and agree on:
Vaginas aren't clowncars.

I'm not defining what is and is not gay, I'm saying that "one who is sexually attracted to those of one's own sex" is how we define homosexual and 'gay' is just a slang term for that. I'm just citing the definition, not deciding what it is. If you don't feel that 'gay' is synonymous with 'homosexual' in this context, then we won't be able to have this debate.

To address your claims about me, no, I'm not saying I'm only willing to tolerate a plain vanilla male personality. I don't mind a guy wearing a pink shirt; I don't mind an effeminate guy; I don't mind a gay guy; and I don't mind any combination of these things.

However, if he shoves a picture of his asshole in my face, unprompted and at work no less, then he's an asshole. If he accuses me of being homophobic just because I don't like him, then he's an asshole.

If this character was a straight woman with penis paraphernalia all over her desk, a picture of her asshole on her phone, and detailed genital descriptions of the guy she slept with last night, I wouldn't like her either.

...and yet none of the signature qualities of Key's character are actually gay.

There's nothing gay about his haircut, his shirt, his lisp or his asshole-selfie. The only thing gay about him is his sexual attraction to men. The rest is just his personality.

I wouldn't tolerate an immature, inconsiderate, unprofessional straight asshole, so why should I have to tolerate one who's gay?

@SDGundamX

So you genuinely believe that make-up has nothing to do with sexuality? Make-up makes women look more attractive to men. That's why it exists. There is no distinction between "attractive" and "sexually attractive." They are one and the same. Society tells women that without make-up, they are unattractive. It's also a double-standard, as men are not expected to wear make-up (unless they're on TV).

And basic hygiene is not a valid analogy. Hygiene is a matter of practicality. If you didn't bathe or wear deodorant, you would stink and annoy those around you, increasing friction and reducing productivity in the workplace. Make-up, on the other hand, is purely cosmetic. It serves no purpose other than making yourself more sexually appealing. It's the same reason why women are expected to shave their legs and armpits and have slim but curvy bodies. It's the same reason why they wear high heels.

Idealized gender representations exist solely for the sake of increasing your sexual appeal. If you don't live up to these representations, society looks down upon you and makes you feel like shit. Women wear make-up because they are insecure about their appearance. They're insecure because society has created notions of beauty that are unattainable through natural means.

@Jerykk

Way to completely miss the point of the video.

They're not complaining about people focusing on their appearance. They are complaining about the representation in the videos of women as objects that exist purely for men's sexual gratification. And in the videos, these sexual objects are routinely idealized as having curvy bodies, wearing little clothing, and having nothing to contribute to the video other than being an object for men's sexual desires--they don't even talk in most cases.

And no, makeup is not a huge problem. People dress and groom themselves in a way that they hope is attractive to other people--not necessarily sexually attractive but at the very least looking like they've got their basic shit together. Hell, even guys are using cosmetics these days.

But to each his own. I suppose you leave the house every day with unwashed, uncombed hair and wearing a Hefty bag with cutouts for your arms and neck? And certainly you don't wear deodorant right? Because that just tells the world you can only achieve your idealized representation by hiding your true smell.

One of the many core and wrong ideas in Feminism is that the sex of a person doesn't seem to play much of a role in anything. And in this case, Feminism is responsible for holding back medical science. Feminism is a blight on intellectual discourse. I'm not going to spend the time it takes to unravel a snake like Feminism here, but in brief, it's an untenable ideology.

One of its core philosophies is the idea of the Patriarchy, which is not only theoretical, but creates hypocritical scenarios in Feminist debate.

For instance, Feminists state that the Patriarchy supports and allows men to lead privileged lives. Yet when it is pointed out that men are sentenced twice as long for exact same crimes; men have zero protection of their genitals as babies; that there is FAR more funding for women's schooling, businesses, and health; or that in any emergency situation it is expected that men's lives are forfeit - the argument you'll get back is "See, Patriarchy hurts men too!". This rebuttal is in obvious contradiction to the idea that Patriarchy allows men to live privileged lives.

Another core idea is wage gap which has been disproven over and over for decades, even by some Feminsts:

http://www.topmanagementdegrees.com/women-dont-make-less/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

Feminism also focuses a great deal on "objectification", which presupposes that men are (always) sexually attracted to something *other* than the curves of a womans body. This is not only obviously off kilter for anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary psychology, but has been scientifically proven false. Men are biologically wired to base mate finding on looks.

So the word 'objectification' actually becomes Feminist propaganda for the demonizing of male sexuality.

Furthermore regarding female objectification in society - we all often see the viral videos "How Women's Bodies Are Changed Beyond Recognition in Photoshop!" But consider that 80% of consumer dollars are spent by women. So in essence we have women complaining about women being objectified while women buy into objectification. What exactly do we expect advertising agencies to do?

I've even seen scenarios for men in which, if he found a woman attractive, then he's objectifying her; and if he found her unattractive, then he's shallow for only caring about looks.

Then there is argument from Feminists that Feminism helps to empower men as well. No, it doesn't. In fact much has been shown in the opposite: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/g2eme/feminists_tell_you_that_the_solution_to_mens/

98% of workforce deaths are male. You never see Feminists rallying to take on these jobs on the front lines in combat, or in jobs that involve heavy machinery, working outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals. Why not? After all, fair is fair! Let's remove the stigma around men being "losers" if they are stay-at-home Dads, while Moms can be the breadwinners for once.

It's clear that Feminism isn't about gender equality. You never see Feminists rallying about how He-Man set an unrealistic body image for boys, but the focus and attention on Barbie has been unreal.

Take into consideration, among everything else I've stated, that words like "mansplaining" are part of Feminist vocabulary, and I think you start to get a picture why no self respecting man has anything to do with Feminism.

There's much much more research, evidence, and articles I can cite, but the final point is that Feminism is a toxic and counterproductive movement.

Perhaps there will be "equality between the sexes" when the likelihood of men becoming estranged from their children and families after a divorce is the same as it is for women... Or when the expectation of "supporting" one's family is actually spending time with them and not simply being their "wallet"...

I'll see equality when the life expectancy between men and women is the same... Or when the risk of becoming homeless is the same... Or to become a victim of violence (or simply being suspected of violence or threatened with violence due to ones gender) is the same.. Or when the probability of dying by suicide is the same. . . Perhaps we'll all be equal then.

If anyone wants to read more about Stephen and LGBTQIA youth, here is the NYT article.

The New York Time's

Generation LGBTQIA

By MICHAEL SCHULMAN

Published: January 10, 2013

STEPHEN IRA, a junior at Sarah Lawrence College, uploaded a video last March on We Happy Trans, a site that shares "positive perspectives" on being transgender.

In the breakneck six-and-a-half-minute monologue - hair tousled, sitting in a wood-paneled dorm room - Stephen exuberantly declared himself "a queer, a nerd fighter, a writer, an artist and a guy who needs a haircut," and held forth on everything from his style icons (Truman Capote and "any male-identified person who wears thigh-highs or garters") to his toy zebra.

Because Stephen, who was born Kathlyn, is the 21-year-old child of Warren Beatty and Annette Bening, the video went viral, garnering nearly half a million views. But that was not the only reason for its appeal. With its adrenalized, freewheeling eloquence, the video seemed like a battle cry for a new generation of post-gay gender activists, for whom Stephen represents a rare public face.

Armed with the millennial generation's defining traits - Web savvy, boundless confidence and social networks that extend online and off - Stephen and his peers are forging a political identity all their own, often at odds with mainstream gay culture.

If the gay-rights movement today seems to revolve around same-sex marriage, this generation is seeking something more radical: an upending of gender roles beyond the binary of male/female. The core question isn't whom they love, but who they are - that is, identity as distinct from sexual orientation.

But what to call this movement? Whereas "gay and lesbian" was once used to lump together various sexual minorities - and more recently "L.G.B.T." to include bisexual and transgender - the new vanguard wants a broader, more inclusive abbreviation. "Youth today do not define themselves on the spectrum of L.G.B.T.," said Shane Windmeyer, a founder of Campus Pride, a national student advocacy group based in Charlotte, N.C.

Part of the solution has been to add more letters, and in recent years the post-post-post-gay-rights banner has gotten significantly longer, some might say unwieldy. The emerging rubric is "L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.," which stands for different things, depending on whom you ask.

"Q" can mean "questioning" or "queer," an umbrella term itself, formerly derogatory before it was appropriated by gay activists in the 1990s. "I" is for "intersex," someone whose anatomy is not exclusively male or female. And "A" stands for "ally" (a friend of the cause) or "asexual," characterized by the absence of sexual attraction.

It may be a mouthful, but it's catching on, especially on liberal-arts campuses.

The University of Missouri, Kansas City, for example, has an L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. Resource Center that, among other things, helps student locate "gender-neutral" restrooms on campus. Vassar College offers an L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. Discussion Group on Thursday afternoons. Lehigh University will be hosting its second annual L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. Intercollegiate Conference next month, followed by a Queer Prom. Amherst College even has an L.G.B.T.Q.Q.I.A.A. center, where every group gets its own letter.

The term is also gaining traction on social media sites like Twitter and Tumblr, where posts tagged with "lgbtqia" suggest a younger, more progressive outlook than posts that are merely labeled "lgbt."

"There's a very different generation of people coming of age, with completely different conceptions of gender and sexuality," said Jack Halberstam (formerly Judith), a transgender professor at the University of Southern California and the author, most recently, of "Gaga Feminism: Sex, Gender, and the End of Normal."

"When you see terms like L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.," Professor Halberstam added, "it's because people are seeing all the things that fall out of the binary, and demanding that a name come into being."

And with a plethora of ever-expanding categories like "genderqueer" and "androgyne" to choose from, each with an online subculture, piecing together a gender identity can be as D.I.Y. as making a Pinterest board.

BUT sometimes L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. is not enough. At the University of Pennsylvania last fall, eight freshmen united in the frustration that no campus group represented them.

Sure, Penn already had some two dozen gay student groups, including Queer People of Color, Lambda Alliance and J-Bagel, which bills itself as the university's "Jewish L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. Community." But none focused on gender identity (the closest, Trans Penn, mostly catered to faculty members and graduate students).

Richard Parsons, an 18-year-old transgender male, discovered that when he attended a student mixer called the Gay Affair, sponsored by Penn's L.G.B.T. Center. "I left thoroughly disappointed," said Richard, a garrulous freshman with close-cropped hair, wire-framed glasses and preppy clothes, who added, "This is the L.G.B.T. Center, and it's all gay guys."

Through Facebook, Richard and others started a group called Penn Non-Cis, which is short for "non-cisgender." For those not fluent in gender-studies speak, "cis" means "on the same side as" and "cisgender" denotes someone whose gender identity matches his or her biology, which describes most of the student body. The group seeks to represent everyone else. "This is a freshman uprising," Richard said.

On a brisk Tuesday night in November, about 40 students crowded into the L.G.B.T. Center, a converted 19th-century carriage house, for the group's inaugural open mike. The organizers had lured students by handing out fliers on campus while barking: "Free condoms! Free ChapStick!"

"There's a really vibrant L.G.B.T. scene," Kate Campbell, one of the M.C.'s, began. "However, that mostly encompasses the L.G.B. and not too much of the T. So we're aiming to change that."

Students read poems and diary entries, and sang guitar ballads. Then Britt Gilbert - a punky-looking freshman with a blond bob, chunky glasses and a rock band T-shirt - took the stage. She wanted to talk about the concept of "bi-gender."

"Does anyone want to share what they think it is?"

Silence.

She explained that being bi-gender is like manifesting both masculine and feminine personas, almost as if one had a "detachable penis." "Some days I wake up and think, 'Why am I in this body?' " she said. "Most days I wake up and think, 'What was I thinking yesterday?' 

"Britt's grunginess belies a warm matter-of-factness, at least when describing her journey. As she elaborated afterward, she first heard the term "bi-gender" from Kate, who found it on Tumblr. The two met at freshman orientation and bonded. In high school, Kate identified as "agender" and used the singular pronoun "they"; she now sees her gender as an "amorphous blob."

By contrast, Britt's evolution was more linear. She grew up in suburban Pennsylvania and never took to gender norms. As a child, she worshiped Cher and thought boy bands were icky. Playing video games, she dreaded having to choose male or female avatars.

In middle school, she started calling herself bisexual and dated boys. By 10th grade, she had come out as a lesbian. Her parents thought it was a phase - until she brought home a girlfriend, Ash. But she still wasn't settled.

"While I definitely knew that I liked girls, I didn't know that I was one," Britt said. Sometimes she would leave the house in a dress and feel uncomfortable, as if she were wearing a Halloween costume. Other days, she felt fine. She wasn't "trapped in the wrong body," as the cliché has it - she just didn't know which body she wanted.

When Kate told her about the term "bi-gender," it clicked instantly. "I knew what it was, before I knew what it was," Britt said, adding that it is more fluid than "transgender" but less vague than "genderqueer" - a catchall term for nontraditional gender identities.

At first, the only person she told was Ash, who responded, "It took you this long to figure it out?" For others, the concept was not so easy to grasp. Coming out as a lesbian had been relatively simple, Britt said, "since people know what that is." But when she got to Penn, she was relieved to find a small community of freshmen who had gone through similar awakenings.

Among them was Richard Parsons, the group's most politically lucid member. Raised female, Richard grew up in Orlando, Fla., and realized he was transgender in high school. One summer, he wanted to room with a transgender friend at camp, but his mother objected. "She's like, 'Well, if you say that he's a guy, then I don't want you rooming with a guy,' " he recalled. "We were in a car and I basically blurted out, 'I think I might be a guy, too!' "

After much door-slamming and tears, Richard and his mother reconciled. But when she asked what to call him, he had no idea. He chose "Richard" on a whim, and later added a middle name, Matthew, because it means "gift of God."

By the time he got to Penn, he had been binding his breasts for more than two years and had developed back pain. At the open mike, he told a harrowing story about visiting the university health center for numbness and having a panic attack when he was escorted into a women's changing room.

Nevertheless, he praised the university for offering gender-neutral housing. The college's medical program also covers sexual reassignment surgery, which, he added, "has heavily influenced my decision to probably go under the Penn insurance plan next year."

PENN has not always been so forward-thinking; a decade ago, the L.G.B.T. Center (nestled amid fraternity houses) was barely used. But in 2010, the university began reaching out to applicants whose essays raised gay themes. Last year, the gay newsmagazine The Advocate ranked Penn among the top 10 trans-friendly universities, alongside liberal standbys like New York University.

More and more colleges, mostly in the Northeast, are catering to gender-nonconforming students. According to a survey by Campus Pride, at least 203 campuses now allow transgender students to room with their preferred gender; 49 have a process to change one's name and gender in university records; and 57 cover hormone therapy. In December, the University of Iowa became the first to add a "transgender" checkbox to its college application.

"I wrote about an experience I had with a drag queen as my application essay for all the Ivy Leagues I applied to," said Santiago Cortes, one of the Penn students. "And I got into a few of the Ivy Leagues - Dartmouth, Columbia and Penn. Strangely not Brown.

"But even these measures cannot keep pace with the demands of incoming students, who are challenging the curriculum much as gay activists did in the '80s and '90s. Rather than protest the lack of gay studies classes, they are critiquing existing ones for being too narrow.

Several members of Penn Non-Cis had been complaining among themselves about a writing seminar they were taking called "Beyond 'Will & Grace,' " which examined gay characters on shows like "Ellen," "Glee" and "Modern Family." The professor, Gail Shister, who is a lesbian, had criticized several students for using "L.G.B.T.Q." in their essays, saying it was clunky, and proposed using "queer" instead. Some students found the suggestion offensive, including Britt Gilbert, who described Ms. Shister as "unaccepting of things that she doesn't understand."

Ms. Shister, reached by phone, said the criticism was strictly grammatical. "I am all about economy of expression," she said. "L.G.B.T.Q. doesn't exactly flow off the tongue. So I tell the students, 'Don't put in an acronym with five or six letters.' "

One thing is clear. Ms. Shister, who is 60 and in 1979 became The Philadelphia Inquirer's first female sportswriter, is of a different generation, a fact she acknowledges freely, even gratefully. "Frankly, I'm both proud and envious that these young people are growing up in an age where they're free to love who they want," she said.

If history is any guide, the age gap won't be so easy to overcome. As liberated gay men in the 1970s once baffled their pre-Stonewall forebears, the new gender outlaws, to borrow a phrase from the transgender writer Kate Bornstein, may soon be running ideological circles around their elders.

Still, the alphabet soup of L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. may be difficult to sustain. "In the next 10 or 20 years, the various categories heaped under the umbrella of L.G.B.T. will become quite quotidian," Professor Halberstam said.

Even at the open mike, as students picked at potato chips and pineapple slices, the bounds of identity politics were spilling over and becoming blurry.

At one point, Santiago, a curly-haired freshman from Colombia, stood before the crowd. He and a friend had been pondering the limits of what he calls "L.G.B.T.Q. plus."

"Why do only certain letters get to be in the full acronym?" he asked.

Then he rattled off a list of gender identities, many culled from Wikipedia. "We have our lesbians, our gays," he said, before adding, "bisexual, transsexual, queer, homosexual, asexual." He took a breath and continued. "Pansexual. Omnisexual. Trisexual. Agender. Bi-gender. Third gender. Transgender. Transvestite. Intersexual. Two-spirit. Hijra. Polyamorous."

By now, the list had turned into free verse. He ended: "Undecided. Questioning. Other. Human."

The room burst into applause.

Correction: January 10, 2013, Thursday

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: An earlier version of this article and a picture caption referred incorrectly to a Sarah Lawrence College student who uploaded a video online about being transgender. He says he is Stephen Ira, not Stephen Ira Beatty.

Source NYT

Fair Use

pffffft... i'd like to mention ladder theory. it seems to have been coined by a very angry, very sexually frustrated man on the internet. but i found it interesting. i have mostly dudes for friends. i've only gotten emotionally/sexually confused by 2 of them. one is a long term boyfriend. but i've interviewed them all about this ladder theory-ness. we all mostly agree with it. here it is:

men tend to have just one ladder, they would consider sticking their penis in every girl the know, just at varying levels. you may be the top rung on the ladder, or you may be at the very very bottom rung of the ladder. there is also the abyss... which is like "i'd rather chew my own arm off then sleep with this person". if you're there, you're either a relative or someone they dislike so much that you're not friends. or maybe you're an ex who did something awful.

girls have 2 ladders: a "guys they'd fuck ladder" and a "just friends" ladder. you can jump and/or straddle ladders, but you risk falling into the abyss.

i am aware that i've been/ may still be on some rung of my dude friends ladders, i suspect i occupy a rung at the very very bottom or maybe i'm in the abyss because i occupy "sister" status in their brains. they're all on my "just friends" ladder. so, it'll never happen. and i'm ok with that. i'm also not friends with emotionally stunted douchebags, which helps.

i feel like the only time you're not actually friends (despite whatever sexual interest may exist) is when you're so preoccupied with getting into your friends pants that you're not actually being her friend. or when one friend is in love and the other does not reciprocate. other than that, two reasonable, sexually attractive adults can be friends just fine.

you disgust me. you clearly dont see the point at all. if you are so intentionally blinded by your own lack of identity that you have to attribute your gender confusion to a CHILD, seek therapy elsewhere.

>> ^hpqp:

I fail to grasp your point. It's not about how the person feels about themselves; indeed, while a non-operated transsexual is still "male/female" biologically, they are the opposite sex in their minds, their self-identity and behaviour. The problem is the image of themselves that is reflected back on them by society (the perceived identity).
Imagine a gay man who, despite telling everyone he is gay, and acting as stereotypically "gay" as possible, is constantly treated as straight: gay men ignore his advances because they believe he is heterosexual, and women shun him because he's not a real "wo-/man". The analogy isn't perfect, but the fact remains that "no man is an island, entire of itself" (Donne). Our lives and identities are affected by the perceptions and reactions/judgments of others.
edit: no amount of openmindedness can change that fact that sexual attraction is affected by a person's physical attributes. A heterosexual male, for example, will generally react more positively (in terms of sexual responsiveness) to a convincing trap than to a masculine-looking transsexual. That's where ftm transsexuals have an advantage: it is easier to acquire masculine traits with testosterone (and thus attract heterosexual women/gay men) than vice-versa. Remember, we all begin as "girls" in the womb.
>> ^chilaxe:
@Trancecoach @hpqp "the pain of being in the wrong body"
From the perspective of human potential, it doesn't really seem proportionate for someone to care that much which gender they are.
Is one gender really better than the other, or are they both within the range of reasonable human experiences? Are people's personalities really that inflexible and unadaptive?
It's really not that difficult to study gender roles and charisma and learn how to play a male or female well.

I fail to grasp your point. It's not about how the person feels about themselves; indeed, while a non-operated transsexual is still "male/female" biologically, they are the opposite sex in their minds, their self-identity and behaviour. The problem is the image of themselves that is reflected back on them by society (the perceived identity).

Imagine a gay man who, despite telling everyone he is gay, and acting as stereotypically "gay" as possible, is constantly treated as straight: gay men ignore his advances because they believe he is heterosexual, and women shun him because he's not a real "wo-/man". The analogy isn't perfect, but the fact remains that "no man is an island, entire of itself" (Donne). Our lives and identities are affected by the perceptions and reactions/judgments of others.

edit: no amount of openmindedness can change that fact that sexual attraction is affected by a person's physical attributes. A heterosexual male, for example, will generally react more positively (in terms of sexual responsiveness) to a convincing trap than to a masculine-looking transsexual. That's where ftm transsexuals have an advantage: it is easier to acquire masculine traits with testosterone (and thus attract heterosexual women/gay men) than vice-versa. Remember, we all begin as "girls" in the womb.

>> ^chilaxe:

@Trancecoach @hpqp "the pain of being in the wrong body"
From the perspective of human potential, it doesn't really seem proportionate for someone to care that much which gender they are.
Is one gender really better than the other, or are they both within the range of reasonable human experiences? Are people's personalities really that inflexible and unadaptive?
It's really not that difficult to study gender roles and charisma and learn how to play a male or female well.

>> ^lucky760:

>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^lucky760:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^lucky760:
She looks a bit like Elvira Mistress of the Dark in this video.
I find it odd that everyone finds her so "hot." She's cute and seems like a fun person to hang out with, but not so much hot really.

maybe it's because she IS cute and IS fun to hang out with MAKES her hot?
Shocking, I know, but some people find qualities other than the physical to be hot.

Not quite, but of course it depends on how you choose to interpret the term "hot." The most common application of the word in describing a person is in reference to their physical and, more specifically, sexual attraction.
It's atypical, to say the least, for a person to describe someone as hot in reference to a list of traits excluding their physicality. You hear "Man, that chick is totally just-okay looking and built like a preteen boy, but she is so effing hot, Broseph. I totally don't wanna do her, but I would enjoy hanging out having a conversation and glass of lemonade with her. She's scorching hot! High five!" not so much.
Cute? You betcha. Winning personality? So it would seem. Hot? Mmm... Big negatory on that one, Kimosabe. But let's just agree to disagree.

What isn't physically "hot" about her? It's never dawned on me that she is anything but. Do you mean hot like stick figure vomit faced model hot, cuz that ain't hot -- that's obnoxious. Or do you mean that her body isn't as toned as that of a hot womans? Either we have a different standard of beauty or I'm misunderstanding a piece of the hotness puzzle.

When I look at her I see an adolescent girl, and I don't tend to regard who I perceive to be young-looking, underdeveloped girls as hot pieces of ass. I'm realizing that one key requisite in my standard of hotness is the piece of meat woman must actually look like a (grown-ass) woman, and not a (still-maturing) teenager.
But that's just me.