I found a shocking info here. Even if you can't read french, scroll down to the section "Les transexuelles opérées !" (= post-op trannies) and you'll read three names. To my knowledge, only one fits the bill : Lana Wood was indeed born a man and had a sex change in the early 90's. But the other two?!!
Would you think it is : - one of porn's best-kept secret? - a well known fact ? - another pointless rumor (Internet or pre-Internet era) ?
Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03
Posted - Jun 17 2006 : 1:49PM
If that list is true, I have to question my own sexual orientation. Cara Lott and Lois Ayres (that is who they were trying to spell, isn't it?) were all woman as far as I'm concerned. I would have licked anything either of them offered me back in the day. The only full TS I ever encountered in mainstream porn was Jill Monroe, and that wasn't exactly a secret. I know there were others on the fringe. I believe Sulka was one of them.
I confirm Lana Wood is a transsexual but it's not actually a secret ! She (or he) was working on the same production than me years ago for Nils Molitor MAGMA PROD. in Paris.
I have a little story about it... For those who remembers the French Porn star Dragixa, her boyfriend at the time was the French male talent Eric Weiss. That morning when he saw Lana in the hotel's lobby, Eric went to Nils Molitor to ask about Lana cause she was a kind of new in France.
Then all day he was getting Nils ears off to try to get a scene together with Lana. Nils finally accepted and gave him a scene the very next day.
I've heard that he was horny like hell during the scene ! After the scene during the day somebody told him a little secret about Lana. Eric,thinking it was a joke went to Nils to make sure...
Nils told him the truth and Eric spend the rest of the day alone nearly depressive probably thinking about his sexual orientation !
I'm sorry, but can someone explain this to me? Why is a woman who was accidently born with male genitals and changed it due to the reason that the body parts were totally wrong is considered unthinkable and dirty? I mean, if a girl has big silicon boobs, she is still "bangable". When a woman had to wear male genitals for a long time when she was not able to change that, because she was a child in the wrong body, why is she considered a second class woman and an easy target for male confusion and contempt?
Im a big Lois ayers fan going back to her days working for bruce seven. and i can tell you now she is all woman. that webb site is way off base.loved lois in her fetish lesbian scenes.
My initial message didn't imply contempt or awe, past the initial "shock" (read "Big Surprise") of reading the news (or rumour). And my intention was not to make a discussion about how porn is a freak show blah blah blah... I don't consider that this rumor (or fact) belong to the trash news category.
As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with girls who where born with the wrong genitals. I always enjoyed watching Lana Wood, and I always "knew" about her.
Babby, regarding Lois Ayres we both like her a lot (and I especially liek her lesbian side too). However, I don't get your point : do yo mean that she was was way too hot and feminine to be born a man?
Im saying i have tons of her movies. and there is no evidence she was once a man. but lets just say she was. i still like what she did in porn. and will still watch my old movies. but i dont believe it.
kami i dont believe it either. i have nothing against people no matter who they are. i watch porn because i love it. and my big fetish is girl girl domination sex. and Lois was great in those scenes. i dont want to be hearing next that kami Andrews was once a man. NO way.
Never say never; EVENTUALLY they'll have the technology to do full-body, right-down-to-the-chromosomes sex changes. Probably about the time we have flying cars and robot slaves.
I haven't studied this subject extensively, but I don't think I accept the premise of your question. It just sounds like postmodern BS to me. I would consider such a person to be a male with Gender Dysphoria Disorder. Now it very well could be that the best treatment for this disorder is sexual reassignment surgery, and I support a person's right to have this procedure. But no matter what cosmetic changes are made, genetically, this person is still a member of the male sex.
By your tone, it seems that you are expressing disapproval of guys who find transexuals sexually undesirable. I don't think anyone needs to justify their sexual preferences, but I will try to answer your question anyways. The idea of having sex with someone who is genetically male, no matter how pretty this person might be, just creeps me out. If I found out that a person I was attracted to was born a male, I don't think I would be attracted to this person anymore. The best way I can think of to explain this aversion is to compare it to incest. If I were adopted and I discovered that the older woman I was attracted to was actually my biological mother, I don't think I would be attracted to her anymore. The thought of having sex with her would just creep me out.
I can remember whacking-off to Tula (when she was in Playboy ), even though the news that she was a transexual had already broken. It's not a "Gay thing" either. Hot is hot. Tula was very attractive and had all the right parts in the right places
Lana Wood even did an interview prior to her gangbang stating that she was a transexual. She never hid it, hell even Hustler printed the info along with her photolayout. I think it was never hidden that Lady Paree was too.
i think i have seen lana wood in mid 90ies for the first time. she did a few videorama appearences in that period ("extrem pervers") i always liked her performances well, (s)he's a real nasty slut and loves pissing and físting. all i thought about was to fuck her. years later walter burns mentioned that fact here at adt and i was very impressed about (s)he's a post op transsexual. overall i wasn't shocked to hear that, even i wasn't able to belive it.
looks like thats the truth. anyway, i doesn't make a difference to me. am i weired ? no. just horny.
Hormones does not only change the bodily structures but also the brain structures, a man will start to actually think like a woman, becoming more emotional and less practical.
The reason why some transsexuals do not want to do anything about the genitalia is probably that it's not a simple procedure, but they can still live like women in their daily life... some girls in porn seem to suffer from severe penis envy so maybe some transsexuals would prefer too keep it because of this. She-males too me are girls with permanent strap-ons.
Hormones is also specualated to be the cause - the amount of hormones the fetus are targeted for during pregnancy may be too high or too low, resulting in feminine men or masculine women. These are just natural variations.
So, anywho, this doesn't shock me at all... if you can't tell she was once a man... does it matter at all? Does it make you gay? Maybe you subconciously KNEW all the time, maybe her once being a man was the initial turn-on? I don't think so though.
[Link]
john thomas Deactivated User
1168 Posts 6/06
Posted - Jun 18 2006 : 6:54AM
My theory: The world is a difficult, messy, fundamentally ungraspable place. We all have to find ways of coping with that basic facts of existence just so we can live from day to day. One popular way of doing so is to pretend the world is much simpler than it is, that everything can be divided up in to neat little boxes - men/women, gay/straight, black/white, left/right, us/them, etc. This is, as far as it goes, a fair technique. Unfortunately some people forget that it is only a technique. They invest so much of themselves in their little boxes that anything - like, eg, a transgendered individual - that shows that those neat little boxes are just a pretence and can never really contain the full rich complexity of life and the world becomes deeply disturbing to them. To admit that someone born with male genitalia might, after corrective surgery, properly become a woman would be to admit that the world is more fluid and nebulous and gloriously strange than their too-tidy system can accommodate and that would leave their whole worldview and thus their whole life groundless. So, wanting to preserve the fantasy of the neat little boxes, the only response they can make is hostility, contempt and plain denial ("she will never ever really be biologically a woman").
[Link]
eurotrash Deactivated User
europe 59 Posts 5/06
Posted - Jun 18 2006 : 9:01AM
i am a fan of ajita wilson. yes, he-she did hardcore. one is called naked wild erections. alot of the straight male porn stars fucked ajita . including manlio certosino a.k.a. mark shannon. aristide massacessi and jess franco both shot ajita in films. ajita worked alot in europe and even did a movie with telly savalas. one of my favourites is gola profonda nera. it has a ton of nudity with all the actresses in the movie. 1969-1986 was a special time for eurosleaze and eurohardcore films. unfortunately that is over and will never come back.
What you are saying applies to race, politics, sexual orientation, and even gender. But it doesn't apply to sex. There are two distinct categories, male and female, which more than 99% of all people fall into at birth. A minuscule percentage of people have disorders that cause sexual ambiguity, and these people are categorized as intersexed. This tiny little grey category shouldn't lead anyone to conclude that their aren't black & white categories.
[Link]
john thomas Deactivated User
1168 Posts 6/06
Posted - Jun 18 2006 : 4:26PM
BadDoggy, thanks for your intelligent reply. I have four comments to make in response:
1. You acknowledge the existence of intersexed people yet claim that, because these are only a tiny fraction of the population, they do not invalidate the two-sex model. I disagree completely. Even if there was only one person in all the world who could not be fitted neatly into one of the two boxes that would still be enough to prove that those boxes are only approximations. I do not say that they are useless approximations. They are not. They are very useful approximations. I do not say that there is no element of truth behind them. Most likely there is. But still they are only approximations. And anyone who tries to force everyone into one or other of the boxes is going to find themselves frustrated.
2. You say categorically that "there are two distinct categories, male and female" as if it could not be doubted. And yet I wonder if you are aware of just how widely that way of dividing the world has been rejected in favour of some alternative. Aristotle (for example) believed that there was only one sex (male) and anything else was just a more or less precise variation on that one ideal sex. On the other side, many cultures around the world have acknowledged some sort of "third sex". Clearly the idea that there are two sexes, no more no less, which seems so obvious to us, has not been obvious at all to many people in many cultures at many times throughout history (it may even be that a majority of the people who have ever lived would have rejected the two-sex model as obviously absurd). Can we really say that all these people were hopelessly deluded and that we modern westerners alone have discovered the true sexual division of the world? Is it not more likely that our way of dividing the world is just as arbitrary as Aristotle's?
3. You concede that my analysis applies to gender categories. Yet the ideas of sex and gender are so confused in our society that I don't think you can separate the two and say that the division of people into two sexes is just a fact of the world but the division into genders is a cultural decoration of that unbendable fact. If gender is a fluid concept then it takes sex with it.
However, 4. Since my comments were made in response to MissJanet's query as to why transsexual women tend to generate a response of strangely savage contempt from some men, you could still accept it as an explanation of that, even if you exclude sex from my analysis, just by reframing it as being due to men reacting with hostility to someone who challenges their neat division of the world into strictly separated genders.
Those are the points I wanted to make. I'm sorry that this has been a long post. I like to make sure that my every i is dotted and my every t crossed. I would like to reiterate that I do appreciate your earlier, obviously well-considered, response. I am pleased to be able to have an intelligent conversation on an issue that can so often just degenerate into name-calling.
I don't claim that there are two distinct sexes, and nothing outside of these two categories. I merely claim that there are two distinct sexes. Sex categories are not a social construction in the way that racial and political categories are. There are pathological disorders which can cause sexual ambiguity, but that doesn't mean that the concept of sex, in general, is ambiguous. It is a biological reality. There are male gametes (sperm) and female gametes (ovum), and this is the foundation of sexual reproduction. The existence of intersexed people makes the two-sex model flawed, but I still think sex (at least in humans) more closely resembles a dichotomy than a continuum. Race, on the otherhand, is better described as existing on a continuum. Distinguishing one race from another requires substantial arbitrary division. The differences between sperm and ovum are not arbitrary. In any case, the vast majority of transsexuals don't have an ambiguous biological sex, only an ambiguous gender.I disagree. I can imagine a world where there is no sexual ambiguity at all; where 100% of people fit cleanly into the biological categories of male and female (with the advances in genetic science, this might even become a reality one day). In such a world, I see no reason why gender ambiguity could not still exist. If this is so, then gender being a fluid concept does not neccesitate that sex is also a fluid concept.I think not. Science has come a long way since Aristotle. Aristotle believed that one could know all there is to know about the world through observation and logic alone. He didn't use measurement or experimentation. Of course, I'm assuming that you agree with me that Science has a unique claim to knowledge, and is not just one of many worldviews, with one being no more valid or invalid than another.You're right, and I do think your explanation has merit. I guess I was just nitpicking.Thank you, and I feel likewise.
I remember reading a Hustler Erotic Video Guide like 14 years ago about this pornstar names Sasha who was also born a man but then had a complete change.
Chloe Temple Interview
Posted - Jun 17 2006 : 12:39PM
