Want more or not?

[Guest]

I think putting a penis in your mouth (or in your ass) is an homosexual act. Plain and simple. No middle ground. Hetersexuals don't do that. The last I checked there are two kinds of sex going in the world; homosex and heterosex. And it doesn't matter if the person your having sex with is in some middle ground like a ladyboy. You can still only have 2 kinds of sex in the world. Homo or hetero. A person needs to be defined by that.
So I really don't think there's a need for finding some new middle ground in the world of psychology. For example: Theft are the actions of a thief and help define a thief for what he is. The rapist is defined as such not by his imgination or desire, but his rapist actions. Do you see what I'm getting at. I can't go to jail for wanting to rob a bank. I get thrown into prison for doing the action of robbing a bank.  It's not the feminine looking LB or the man in drag that is in question it is the actions that define a person. I think at best, psychology should define those who are attracted to LB's and go down on them by their actions with them. If their actions are of the homosexual variety then they are "homosexual with a female complex" or something like that. No middle ground needed.
The new labels that the psychologists come up with are just their attempt at saying "you got something called "___", it's not your fault, now get your ass in my office and give me $150 and hour."

You can suck a cock of someone wearing a dress. You can fuck a pussy of someone wearing a tuxedo. Only 2 choices in the sex world.

So you are re-defining the homosexuality

According to Oxford

adjective feeling or involving sexual attraction to people of one€™s own sex.

Unless you believe that ladyboy's are men and not some 3rd sex as many believe?

So why is that most sciences evolve but sexuality can only be defined by 2 different types?

You simplifying the whole thing using those analogies.

Why is it the action and not the psychology behind the action that defines the person?

So you just see ladyboy's as a man in a dress?

Well I have to say we will agree to disagree on this one.

[Guest]

Ok, good call, I did oversimply a very complicated senario. I guess I didn't really want to go that route. I think what I was trying to get at was, that even if a person does or never does act on his/her sexual desires there is still only two general ways to have sex; with a penis or a pussy. Whether it's a ladyboy or a hemaphodite or whatever, is just a variant of the two sexes. I don't think really a 3rd sex. Some kind of fetish, footnote, or subdivision or whatever you want to call it. When it is all said and done, your are still really dealing with a penis or a pussy so nothing has really changed. Sure, the feelings and emotions are important, but they change and morf over a lifetime and through generations. But I still see only 2 ways of having sex. That hasn't changed. I think that is where the focus should be by the world of shrinks, and not make up a new category for every man's sexual desire. Then is beatisality a new sex? A guy who bangs a sheep is fantasizing about a pussy or an ass. Is chat room sex a new kind of sex just because computers are new? No, even in the chat rooms men are fantasizing about one of two things; penises or pussies. Start there and then create your variants, diversions, fetishes and so on....2 sexes with all kinds of flavors.

One day we will be banging incredible lifelike robots, but more than likely there we still be only 2 choices of sex and a bunch of flavors.

[Guest]

Hey Flynn, you're the kind of guy I want to read my book, because I totally disagree with everything you say! But I totally accept your view too, because that is exactly how I used to think, and how my brothers and sisters think, and how George Bush thinks.

I'm not the world's greatest academic or psychologist, but I do know what all the literature says, how I feel, and what a lot of guys on this site and in the bars feel. I've read about 10 books on this now, and about 100 academic articles, and have talked to some 400 LBs on the topic. Here's a quick dump of some items:

The formal definitions are:

Sex - your biological makeup
Gender - a pschological feeling of being masculine or feminine, not connected to sex
Sexuality - your preference of a partner, current common terms are homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual

For your info, LBs in Thailand are called "A second kind of woman" or "The Third Sex". There is great book called The Third Sex, by Richard Totman. The American Indians had a Third Sex called "berdache". India today has a Third Sex called "hijra". Thailand's are formally called "Kathoey" and recognized even in the Buddhist canon as a Third Sex. There is a basic acceptance that most ancient and current civilazations had or have a "sex" which is different from the standard male/female, masculine/feminine categories we use today.

As a bit of a side note, in case you didn't notice, LBs are generally taller than men and women and have unbelievable bodies that almost no male could ever have (even with hormones). About 70% of LBs are taller than the average Thai male according to Thai doctors. There are a few of us who think they are actually genetically different from a man, but there isn't much science on this yet, except for some stuff on Hirschfield's syndrome (XXY chromosone).

As for gender, there is a growing understanding, unlike George Bush, that it is not connected to biological sex, meaning you can be feminine in gender but male in sex and vice versa, and as we all know, there are lots of variants on this; sort of feminine guys, very feminine guys, femboys, LBs. Ditto for women.

Likewise sexuality is generally psychological, not physical and related to gender preference vs biological preference. There is zero doubt in my mind about how I feel. Am I homosexual? Not by a long shot in my mind, because my "preference" is NOT for men. I am not attracted to guys. I am not aroused by guys. I don't look at a guy and say "Oh, he's cute". But I totally love LBs and LB sex. So I am living proof heterosexual and homosexual just doesn't work. Likewise for many of the guys on the site.

Basically, there is a growing recognition in the academic and psychological communities, and even in some sections of society, that sex, gender and sexuality are a continuum, not binary. Don't you know guys that are a little feminine (like femboys) or girls a little masculine? So can't we say masculine and feminine is a bit narrow? ie, there is a continuum? Even sex, to my amazement. [I just read an article that said 5% of all babies in the US are born with ambigious sex, and after birth, are "forced" into one or the other by surgery. For example, if the penis is less than 1 inch, the decision is make it a girl. If there is a clitoris but with 1 testicle, and the clitoris is big, make it a guy. ]

This continuum idea started in the Kinsey Report on sexuality and pretty much every other study have shown that the binary definitions are not sufficient. For example, many guys have 1, or 5, homosexual experiences in their life. Are they homosexual? Some guys only fuck, and are not fucked. And like to fuck women. Are they momosexual or heterosexual, bisexual?

Personally, I think the truth is this continuum idea.

Remember, before modern society, ancient civilizations weren't as caught up in homing in on the binary concept; at least some if not all were open to the idea of third sexes and having sex with different genders sometimes. The binary idea is more of a recent affair.

Now, everything I said is up for debate, because that's just what guys like Bush and some religions disagree with. Even academics disagree. There's a faction that think homosexuality is a disease brought on by nature (and thus can be "cured", or it is genetic, and can also be "cured"). So, of course, I'm presenting a biased view, one I believe in of course, but a growing one.

Anyhow...great topic and thanks for your opinion.

[Guest]

Just re-read this, hope I don't sound like an ass Flynn. No disrespect meant to you or anyone else. I'm a bit caught up in this book thing. Maybe I'm starting to sound like one of these freaking academics.

[brocklanders]

"I think putting a penis in your mouth (or in your ass) is an homosexual act. Plain and simple. No middle ground. Hetersexuals don't do that. The last I checked there are two kinds of sex going in the world; homosex and heterosex. And it doesn't matter if the person your having sex with is in some middle ground like a ladyboy. You can still only have 2 kinds of sex in the world. Homo or hetero. A person needs to be defined by that.
So I really don't think there's a need for finding some new middle ground in the world of psychology. For example: Theft are the actions of a thief and help define a thief for what he is. The rapist is defined as such not by his imgination or desire, but his rapist actions. Do you see what I'm getting at. I can't go to jail for wanting to rob a bank. I get thrown into prison for doing the action of robbing a bank. It's not the feminine looking LB or the man in drag that is in question it is the actions that define a person. I think at best, psychology should define those who are attracted to LB's and go down on them by their actions with them. If their actions are of the homosexual variety then they are "homosexual with a female complex" or something like that. No middle ground needed.
The new labels that the psychologists come up with are just their attempt at saying "you got something called "___", it's not your fault, now get your ass in my office and give me $150 and hour."

You can suck a cock of someone wearing a dress. You can fuck a pussy of someone wearing a tuxedo. Only 2 choices in the sex world. "



Finally, some common sense. I agree. Its the act not the subject. Some serious grey area but true for the most part.[B]

[Bit Beefy]

The one in black trainers gets the thumbs up. The rest of them are a bunch of dudes, IMO. How ever each to ther own. Would take the site to a different zone like www.asian-ts.com/BLOKES-DUDES&FELLAS lol

[brocklanders]

[Guest]

Finally, some common sense.    I agree.   Its the act not the subject.    Some serious grey area but true for the most part

Well I think it is a psychological issue from the point of view of the giver. If he sees the ladyboy as a guy with tits then maybe you are right. But I believe if he sees her as I do as I girl with a little something extra then I believe I am with a girl pure and simple no matter what other bits she has.

I find it overly simplistic to define someones gender based on their genitalia.

[Randyman]

It would be interesting to see how some of the more popular girls looked "before", now that'd be fun.

I don't want to know about it!
         

Why not? It'd be so much fun to see the transformation.

You want to see a "Transformation", check out Mings ID card.
will wonders never cease...randyman

[BAM]

       

[Guest]

Ziggy, hey no offense taken, I apperciate your opinions on the subject because I know their honest. I much rather read a differing view that is honest than some BS about how some guys who fucks 8 ladyboys in one hour or something like that....

Anyway, I know my views are often black and white, and sometimes I surprise myself and even see them shift occassionally.

But I'd like to add that the Kinsey report, often taken for gospel lately thanks to a movie and some popular books, has considered largely unscientific and not reliable a long time ago. He was really a pretty messed up guy and a lot of his stuff is based on unreliable testing, research, data, etc. It gained much credibility because of the vastness and it touched some subjects not dealt with in the past, but it's not on par with geniune research. Just browse "Kinsey flawed, unscientific," or so on....

[stogie bear]

there is still only two general ways to have sex; with a penis or a pussy...

[Guest]

wow, this thread got a lot of play

seems like most people have an opinion on this subject, love 'em or hate 'em

[Wethair]

I don`t exactly love them, but for shure I would like to eat their dicks.....

[fancylighters]

It would be interesting to see the first guy in Anneys' panties and top. As shown in the pic hes too much boy and not enough fem - but has potential - his lips are sexy.
Sai & First are certainly my thing

My suggestion: Have the 1st guy (the more femme one) get together with Anney, or any of the more popular girls, and photograph a transformation - - have the girl convert "him" into a "her". Might be hot!