"I Love You, Phillip Morris!"

[f0xxee]

(Torurot @ Mar. 23 2011,15:19)

No, I think it is safe to say we are tangential hetrosexuals.

Or   it is safe to say we are tangential homo/bisexuals.

I rarely disagree with you my friend but in this instance I will.

As I said in my posts above we are not into the male form, preferring chicks with dicks.
So I fail to see how that makes us tangentially homo/bisexual.
Unless in your instance you prefer the male form over GG's in which case in your instanc you would be correct.

[pacman]

    Thanks for that post Mr Fox. I was reluctant to challenge Torurot's assertion but I have been simmering ever since reading it.

As I stated above, there are many here at the narrow end of the GAY Continuum. For those whom that description fits, good luck to you, but please don't attempt to tar us all with the same brush.

I would never try to tell anyone I am right & they are wrong & I would appreciate not being pigeon holed by anyone else.

Live & let live is a good philosophy to follow...        

[pacman]

And just to even the score with poor ol' Torurot... please read the marvellous article he just posted on the Political thread.

It's by Jeremy Clarkson & it's a beauty...

[pacman]

Sorry, that post isn't in the Political thread, it's in the Totally pointless thread.

Here - https://ladyboy.reviews/forum/non-lb-related-forums/the-fish-box/18693-totally-pointless-thread

Hmmm, it won't imbed but it's in the Fish Box on the last page.

[Torurot]

Is it correct to say we all (most) here straddle the fence between strictly Hetero/homosexual. You have to at least acknowledge it at least tangentially. It doesn't mean your "gay". I earlier, perhaps facetiously said "Ah so, it's a hair thing". Still labels label labels, I don't want to be put into a box...

[transcebu]

(Torurot @ Mar. 24 2011,15:30) Is it correct to say we all (most) here straddle the fence between strictly Hetero/homosexual.  You have to at least acknowledge it at least tangentially.  It doesn't mean your "gay".  I earlier, perhaps facetiously said "Ah so, it's a hair thing".  Still labels label labels, I don't want to be put into a box...  

I'm sure we vary a bit, but I can accept your label.

I define or label myself as transoriented, hence my site, link below... somewhat preferable to trannychaser, admirer, pervert etc. Transattracted is another good term I think.

Academics have labelled us gynandromorphophiles...no thanks!

Truth is I didn't know if I was gay or straight or bi, most my life. I tried about half of both in sexual encounters but never felt at home until with a transwoman.

I've read that there's a degree of repulsion that goes along with arousal. For example, at a heightened aroused state, we'll lick, suck or swallow things that once orgasm is achieved, can seem rather icky if not entirely repulsive.

Our orientation is to the type and activity that tends to generate the greatest arousal with the lowest repulsion response. For me, the balance points clearly at non-op transwomen or femboys.

[marshal]

(strocube @ Mar. 22 2011,12:14) I have a couple of gay friends; one a woman, the other a man, to whom I have let slip my preference for ladyboys. Neither of them thinks I am gay. Yet, I don't think I am totally straight either. This is because I enjoy getting ass-fucked by ladyboys and sucking their cocks. This is in no way behavior that most people would classify as "straight." Yet I have no interest in masculine men. Like you guys, the sight of two dudes sucking face is a bit off putting to me as well. But maybe that's just social conditioning, I don't know.
Human sexuality, I think, is not a black and white, straight/gay, either or kind of thing.  My "lesbian" friend told me that although she is with a woman right now, she is not at all adverse to the idea of fucking guys. She has in the past and may well again.  People are attracted to many different kinds of people, situations, acts, etc. It seems that sexuality is too fluid a thing to be adequately described by our very narrow straight/gay dichotomy.  Just the fact that most of us here don't fit neatly into either one of those categories speaks more about the limitations of language than it does about whether we "are" gay or straight.

There is a term Pansexual which refers to a person who could or would have a relationship with another person regardless of gender. For example the person could develop feelings of love for another person again regardless of gender.

I could be wrong but have read somewhere that a proportion or high percentage of Gay males look for masculinity with there sexual parterners.
Most of us look for femininity with our TS/LB friends.

I clicked once on a gay porn film on tube 8, within seconds i switched the film off and they were only at the kissing part. It was not nice to watch and did absolutely nothing for me.

The question remains what are we looking at or for. Myself for one does not care anymore, because i sure will be meeting ladyboys the next time i arrive in los or anywhere else in south east asia. My first experiences were with bolt on - very femine LB, however as time goes on i find myself looking and finding Femboys just as attractive.

Why bother trying to make sense of our sexuality, it was made round to go round. I think that could apply to whatever part of the anatomy you like to plug!

[tomscam]

"I love you Philip Morris " was a great movie. Downloaded it and watch it three times. The gay scenes made me love the film more because I know it would stir up all those fundamentalist religious types.
I also loved Brokeback Mountain.

MORE GAY MOVIES PLEASE!

[seanbeag7]

Are you pulling the piss with MORE GAY MOVIES PLEASE,