Or as trans vlogger puts it "on shemale porn." I don't know if shemale is officially deemed an offensive term or not, so I just changed it to the safer "trans" label in the title of this topic. And even still, I am not sure "trans" is as descriptive or useful as "shemale" to be frank. This can honestly be a confusing topic sometimes. But here is Theryn Meyer's brief overview of the popularity of trans (aka shemale) porn. Please check it out and discuss. Questions that can serve to generate discussion: What do you think about trans/shemale porn? In any case of how you feel about it, would you agree that it seems to be increasing in popularity? Do you know anyone who is trans?
I have my What's Gay This Week? thread at the ready. "Shemale" is considered an offensive term. However, so is "slut" and "whore" and you see women using the term in porn (and out of it) in a way that connotes something else. Same with "queer" and other terms. "Shemale" hasn't been reclaimed in the same way, however, and so while it is used in porn it is still unwise to throw it around. Even within porn some performers have expressed dismay about the word being used (along with "tranny") while others have used the term and added a disclaimer that it's simply a generic porn term. To answer the questions: 1. I like good porn so if it's good trans porn, I like it. In terms of whether I particularly like porn with trans people in it, yes I do. I used to enjoy Joey Silvera's movies quite a bit. I haven't watched them in a while though. 2. I think it started increasing in popularity some time ago and like many other genres has plateaued to an extent. It's still more popular than a lot of people realise though. 3. Yes, I know a ton of trans men and women, as well as non-binary trans people, genderqueer people, and on and on. Some are pretty good friends, some are people in the same friendship group, some are in activist groups, and others I have simply met while at school or at events etc.
Edited for focus: Reason I might say "shemale" is more useful than "trans" (whether it be transsexual or transgender), is because when you hear/read "shemale" it conjures the imagery that is precisely what consumers are looking for in this industry: an overall female looking person with breasts, presenting in practically total lady form, but who has a penis and balls. Or at least I think that's what they're looking for? It seems to be much more common that people are looking for the female form overall supplemented by male sex organ, rather than male form overall, with a vagina. Is this accurate? Edited by - melvyn on 8/27/2017 4:19:45 PM
Sorry about that. My previous lengthy rant of a post didn't address yours as much as I'd like. No, this isn't intended to be a thread about word policing. I just saw your first comment about the propriety of "shemale" (a issue which I invited, admittedly) and had to get my grievance off my chest as it relates to the broader issue of political correctness and speech. Please do not take that as directed at you or any other individual in particular. I should have responded to you and the rest of the questions I brought up in the first place. 2. When do you think it broke into mainstream? My guess is about mid 2000s largely due to Evil Angel branching out? They seem to be the most popular mainstream brand that promotes it, or perhaps the only big brand name I am aware of that does. I do remember a few years ago Jules Jordan attempted to promote some TG stuff, I think as a distributor deal promoting a separate domain, not on his own site though. I kind of would like to see him branch out and incorporate some TG content into his main site, but it may not fit with his customers as his site is so established by now. Still, it doesn't hurt to suggest. I never followed this genre closely, and still don't really. In point of fact, I don't think I have any trans porn collected or bookmarked. Actually, come to think of it, I did collect comics by Eric Stanton who frequently featured large amazonian women with prodigious pricks. He referred to these ladies as "princks" or something. Heavily femdom stuff, mostly males being dominated but also a lot of heavy girl on girl action. Have you heard of Stanton? The "princks" were interesting, but the main reason I collected his work was because of the way he drew women. So that's really the only trans stuff I ever got into so far. 3. I don't know any trans personally (that I'm aware of), only a couple gay people. I don't pry into the sexuality of anyone I know really, not even my best friends. I did recently ask a group of guy friends if they would let James Charles suck them off. They had no idea who I was talking about, so one of them Googled on his phone. All 4 of them assented. And they're all straight. 2 of them are actually married to women. One of those two has kids by his wife. But I think this definitely says less of their orientation and more to the fact that James is so pretty. Still, it did come as a surprise to me that not one of them objected. I don't know if any of them happen to like watch trans porn, but after hearing the stats Theryn presented, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me if one of them did.
And thanks for responding in the thread. I feel kind of like a dick for unloading all that on my first comment in the topic. Not a good start, and I hope I didn't piss you off. In hindsight I can see how it looks like an epic and immediate derailment... I'm honestly trying to open up discussion, not alienate anyone. I think I'm going to just cut that long post out and save for another thread. BTW I dont disagree much less object to anything you said there. I hope you'll come back.
Melvyn, My big disagreement with that is, in my opinion, the people who identify as trans should be the ones to determine what words are offensive and which ones aren't. They are the ones who identify as such, thus it is their feelings about the words that matter. There have been groups that have reclaimed words, GGG even talks about several of the words that have been reclaimed. I recently graduated from college, despite being an old fart, and there are a lot more genders now than I ever was aware of. It was hard for me trying to remember all the proper pronouns, but I did my best to learn them and use them appropriately. I certainly wasn't going to tell anyone how I felt I should refer to them, that is disrespectful. I think the same goes here.
I have no problem with referring to people as they'd prefer. What skin should it be off our teeth anyway? And there shouldn't be any confusion on this as I'm actually enthusiastic about exploring or even supporting a variety of orientations and backgrounds. I'd hope that's clear, else why would I even want to start this topic?
Actually, I don't know why I forgot, but I do know someone I've corresponded with who is trans. Come to think of it. She's a great artist who does a lot of wonderful traditional graphite illustrations, much of which feature trans themes. I guess I didn't think of her before because she's probably not close enough to qualify as a friend, but I wouldn't take exception to our connection being regarded that way. I would like to encourage any fans of illustrations of pretty women and lots of great detail filled with charm and character to check out her gallery. Cluedog on Deviant
[Link]
A_Fan Deactivated User
1187 Posts 9/16
Posted - Aug 28 2017 : 2:26AM
I have dated a couple of trans women, and seen a few escorts over the years. All of them felt shemale was derogatory (as they are transitioned to women and consider themselves as such through and through), and it was just term made for the porn industry. Tranny is kind of 50/50; they realize it is a slur but many of them just kind of accept it and go with it. If they are in the sex industry (as the escorts I met were), they use the terms shemale and tranny to blend into the fantasies their clients have, but they don't like the terms personally.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Aug 28 2017 : 12:37PM
Do you happen to know the name of the two neuroscientists she referenced? I went to the video she linked to but I didn't see their names in the description or title, and they didn't mention their names in the portion of the video that I watched. I'd like to look them up and read their research. In answer to your questions: I'm a fan. Yes (although it's been popular for years). Yes.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Sep 3 2017 : 12:29PM
^Thanks. She linked to the video that she was getting her info from, but the uploader apparently excised the introductory remarks and neither scientist was named in the title or description.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Sep 8 2017 : 10:28AM
Luckily, a Reddit user was aware of a book those guys wrote titled A Billion Wicked Thoughts. Their names are Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam, and the full video on YouTube (Theryn linked to an extract) was uploaded by ideacity and is titled "Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam - Searching for Sex." So far I haven't been able to find any peer reviewed literature from them.
But those aren't the same people who presented this? Neuroscientists explain why straight men like trans porn This seems to explain some differences, but I don't recall how vetted the methodology was. I just found that it had some interesting analogs.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Sep 18 2017 : 1:40AM
^The full video is on YouTube under the title "Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam - Searching for Sex." Ogas and Gaddam are the authors of A Billion Wicked Thoughts. Edited by - misspornUSA on 9/18/2017 1:42:52 AM
Well, first off, that MsNaughty blog has at least a couple contradictions. Even enough that it sort of ironically confirms an even more generalized and reductive reading than what the researchers being grilled demonstrated. I am going through these indignant responses she has cited and can only shake my head. Some of it is no doubt sound & fair or obvious enough, but it still seems like a wanting argument in bad faith, which is highly confusing until we realize she has a personal interest in terms of investment in the ForTheGirls site in particular. Evidently it is (or was - I can't even find it?) her site she feels was being undersold? Now it's a lot easier to understand why she would feel slighted and want to shoot back - even though there was nothing hostile about the research or tone of the presentation. We couldn't possibly fault anyone for wanting to set the record straight if they know their numbers/stock are being arbitrarily chopped down, let alone in hostile manner. I just have to question how hostile it was. So I checked out one of the first links within MsNaughty's protest to see if I could better understand where this outrage was coming from, and oh my god. This is really why we can't have nice things. Honestly, read this blog which was linked in MsNaughty's blog: Hell hath no fury like fanfic/slash/LiveJournal-brand/Tumblerina warriors I just don't get these kinds of reactions. All that ranting and it only serves to reinforce the generalizations. Note I am careful to say it doesn't PROVE the generalizations, but they do both repeatedly support the assertions, or assumptions if you like, with not merely weak argument, but utter contradictions. Both MsNaughty's blog and Eruthros underscore the generalization that this domain of fanfic/slash is female dominated. Folks this is homophobia-phobia. When you watch those scientists' presentation, how in the hell could you come away feeling like homophobia or transphobia or any type of hatred stemming from a irrational fear of any type of seemingly uncommon or peculiar sexual orientation? It was the exact opposite of that which they were being slammed and accused of. Do none of you feel like those condemnations were out of line? Read the exclusionary cult-like language in that latter blog. Jesus wept. This person is shaming them for "otherizing" when they are only promoting a more open-minded view of wide ranging sexual interests. At the same time, this person is shunning them as "outsiders" telling them off as a consequence. Yet it never occurs to this person that from the perspective of the researchers, these entrenched fan-fic/slash folks are the outsiders, and yet no where in all their messaging do they so bitterly tell them off or even speak down to them. This is tribal and hostile and belligerent and xenophobic as it gets. There was absolutely nothing hateful or shameful about their presentation of the data, but then to get slammed by these tribal warlords. Good grief. When people mock Tumblr and LiveJournal and other social media for being bastions of belligerent identitarian soc-jus hysteria and hate, this is what they are talking about. Read Sai Gaddam's reply and please tell me how it is not far more considerate and measured and demonstrative of better intentions and faith than the belligerent rebuke he was even bothering to entertain. Good lord. It makes you wonder why some would ever bother to even CONSIDER someone as unhinged and hateful as this Eruthros character. They are acting like they are being interrogated by the Spanish Inquisition. That's what this really seems to be boiling down to. Good faith versus bad. We have some reason to suspect bad faith or potential selection bias on the part of the researchers because of some "dodgy" analytics resources. But reaching for homophobia and transphobia and misogyny? Say what??? Where is that coming from? The takeaway from those researchers should be a message of inclusiveness and appreciation, not exclusion and disrespect. People so often would do well to remember not to make perfect the enemy of the good. Edited by - melvyn on 9/18/2017 2:50:33 AM Edited by - melvyn on 9/18/2017 2:51:06 AM
So I tried to comprehend the outrage after going through MsNaughty's blog post, and then Eruthros, and also the mackle.wordpress blog by Alison Macleod... and all I'm getting right now is that this is after all a highly female domain (or feminine if you like), as they all acknowledge and celebrate with pride themselves... and yet if one was to observe this, they'd run the risk of incurring the wrath? Is there something so offensive about the generalization that women read more erotic material than men do? Who the hell are those steamy paperback sections in stores like Target catering to anyway if not predominately women? Straight men? Really? I've read a lot of erotic fiction and the stuff I find myself gravitating toward, and along with hundreds or perhaps thousands of other mostly-guys in my community of interest or those related (disclosure, I'm admitting the sin of generalizing here), could not possibly fill up a paperback. And believe me, I wish it could! The type of stuff we greasy gruff guys like to read - that is if we ever do read erotica - is short and blunt. 10 pages max. MAX. lol. And I'd contend this is still really really REALLY niche for guys - straight guys anyway. It's probably rather niche for gay guys too, but maybe not as. Who knows? Perhaps someone should resea- erm. Oh heaven forfend! Naturally some women who watch porn regularly might take offense to this because I guess the generalization that women read more "porny" stuff whereas men watch more means that if a woman is watching porn she can't be very feminine! This is patently absurd. There is simply no need for this kind of hysterical overreaction whatsoever. I mean who the fuck really gives a flying fuck anyway? Who is really so scared about this anymore? Fear is what drives this kind of hysteria. Speaking of hysteria, it was downright savage for Eruthros to go on that rant about real world violence and the "gay panic" and to levy that against the researchers. Do any of you honestly feel like their research is the kind that typifies the intellectualized fuel of fear and hate? Do you really think people come away from their work wanting to harm anyone who might veer from hetero-normative orientation? I don't know how the exact opposite could have been made more clear by them. But interestingly, I don't seem to find too many guys objecting to this generalization. Probably because 95% of them would never even bother entertaining this entire debate to begin with - precisely cuz they're not about READING about porn, much less porn analysis. Where are all these supposed straight guys who read long drawn out fanfic erotica / slash or steamy novels objecting to this generalization that they must somehow not be as masculine because of it? Why don't any of them seem to care about these findings? Because it's intellectualized analysis of sexuality and most guys really just don't care. If they're interested in sex, most guys will just watch it rather than read about it. And that's probably true of women also. It's just that women still appreciate written erotic fiction more than guys do. IMO if someone has a bone to pick with those authors whose presentation seems to have resonated with a pretty wide audience, then they ought to make a better presentation of their own explaining how everyone else is wrong. Sorry but I just don't like the abuse of terms like "homophobia" or abuse of the topic of misogyny because it really trivializes these issues, and ultimately it only hurts good causes and alienates people. Those researchers may need to brush up on their statistical data collection, but the message was not bad at all. Certainly nothing to condemn them for. They exposed some taboo subjects and I think most people walked away with a more enlightened perspective on sexuality. Why is this such a crime? People have got to lighten the fuck up. Fear is the mind killer and what fuels hysteria and violence. Not honest inquiry and spreading messages that unite. The only phobia I observed was coming from those guys' critics. It's just hopelessly paranoid and non-constructive. You can't have constructive progress without hope. Stop making perfect the enemy of the good. Or set me straight and tell me where I'm going wrong here. Do any of you think those scientists were being oppressively transphobic or sexist or whatever?
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Sep 18 2017 : 12:46PM
I think that Louise Lush makes a convincing case that Sai and Ogi's methodology sucked. For me, that's all that matters. Sai may be the kindest, most respectful neuroscientist around, but that has nothing to do with the soundness of his methodology. The related issues you've mentioned aren't necessarily uninteresting to me, but it's more important to me to determine how much value I can assign to Sai and Ogi's conclusions. That's why Lush's article is so helpful.
If you look at the majority of the blowback, it has nothing to do with methodology, and even if you look at her specific criticism about quantifying reach, she claims to have the data but give nothing. I can grant that if it's literally her business, then the onus isn't on her to disclose membership or reach numbers. It's her prerogative to deny that their numbers are accurate and just hide the actual numbers if she wants to. Hell, she could just as easily make up numbers and no one could dispute them, could they? But the numbers of her personal site's traffic/reach aren't even that critical. These guys are going on trends and prevailing generalizations. What she said in substance actually supports their generalization. And again, I have to ask, why is the generalization such an offense to begin with? I've been mulling this over to this very hour still and it doesn't add up numerically or intellectually. Unless there is something inherently offensive about being a woman or being gay, or if there was even the slightest implication of such being made by those scientists, then this seems like a lot of projected hate coming from the critics. I would LOVE, as I'm sure you and anyone else interested in this topic, to know MORE about the topic with MORE information, rather than trying to shut the whole convo down with contempt and shame for what seems quite honestly much more like merely asking the question and investigating at all, rather than any major damning moral failure here. We also do NOT know the extent of their methodology. I am sure it goes a lot further than just the instance of referring to Alexa and that other analytics resource for just that FortheGirls site. And you can't blame them for not getting the absolute most complete data when they reached out in earnest to various communities or site owners, and some of them erupted not based on anything concrete, but on the suspicion that they were going to use the information to propagate hate toward fan-fic community, women, gays and trans people. This is a unmoored paranoia that seems to have no basis or grounding in rationality. Ok, I get it. They're guys. Their scientists. They're analytical. That makes them bad and undoubtedly harboring nefarious intentions. Of course. I forgot how much the NSA under Obama wanted to round up all the non-hetero-normative people and put them in concentration camps. I think that all this blowback must have been based on very select language policing by postmodern hysteria induced paranoiacs. Because they were "triggered" by language that isn't perfect, out come the pitchforks. Every criticism I read smacks of it, and not a one of them have any statistical data of their own to disprove the quaint generalizations. Please take a listen to this invaluable conversation with two professors who are gaining immense support and traction as the cannibalistic tide of toxic social justice threatens to martyr them and many others. Aside from the very belligerent, contemptuous and privileged squeaky wheels raking everyone who isn't part of their "woke" in-group over the coals, virtually everybody who approaches these subjects rationally and civilly is siding with the professors. The pendulum must swing back at some point. That professor from Evergreen State College, Bret Weinstein, is by just about every conceivable measure a progressive voice active in the social justice movement who teaches about every sort of oppression imaginable, and even he fell victim recently to the social-justice mob. This is JUST like when BLM undermined Bernie Sanders, stealing his stage and berating his followers as racist. Of all people, they sabotage him and insult his followers. This is toxic social-justice hysteria that undermines its own purported goals. It is as divisive, anti-social, and illiberal as activism gets. It turns EVERYONE against them because all it does is alienate with contempt for all. And when you see the rise of popularization of Antifa who proudly wave communist banners, it's way past time for indulging these misguided and belligerent movements. It cannot stand. More people died under communism in the 20th century than under all other ideologies combined. This isn't cute. It isn't trendy. The hammer and sickle are NOT cool. No one would ever tolerate such masses waving Nazi banners without all out panic, nor should it be humored. Communists killed four times as many people as the Nazis did. Granted, that's combined total of Stalin's union and Zedong and Pol Pot, etc. But the point is that it is hardly any better, and for most people around the world, communists symbols may as well be swastikas.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Sep 18 2017 : 8:02PM
^I'm mostly just interested in "According to them, FTG is a minnow in terms of traffic and half of our members are gay men. That's quite the statement to make when you have never contacted the owners and don't have access to a site's statistics or membership details" and the June 25th update. If in the future I hear that Sai and Ogi have made an interesting contribution to the peer reviewed literature on sex and pornography, I'll read what they came up with. I'll do the same if they write a book that is based serious published research. I love following up on footnotes (checking sources), and it's essential to do that if it's possible. Meanwhile, I think I'll pass on A Billion Wicked Thoughts.
About the "minnow" remark - was that the authors' term? Was it intended to discredit or devalue a particular brand/site or was it to put things into statistical perspective in terms of explaining just how vast the market is for fan fic, slash, or erotica? As far as the science goes, if someone wants to dispute scientific claims dealing with numbers, then I don't think it's too much to ask to see some numbers and statistics supporting the dispute. I never doubted that collecting data from Alexa or other site rankings resources could be incomplete, and relying solely on those data points would definitely be a problem, but did they solely rely on them? I don't think they did. I personally began thinking something was off or at least tenuous about Alexa's data when I was comparing the demographic data for Blacked with that of Dogfart/Blacksonblondes. This was a couple years ago, so the Alexa data may have shifted quite a bit since then, but it was showing that the female % of users visiting Blacked was about 15%. I thought that was kinda low, but then perhaps normal for porn. Then I saw that for Dogfart/Blacksonblondes, the % of female visitors was almost 50%! And I was thinking, hold on. I thought Blacked was supposed to be the more female-friendly answer to the crass and crude IR mainstay of the DFN (Dogfartnetwork). It got me wondering if once again (as is typically the case) the conventional wisdom was 180 degrees off course. What if all the complaining we had heard over the last decade, which came to a confounding head just a couple years ago, emphasized by "the Blacked effect", about how porn had been inherently misogynistic and uniquely objectifies and dehumanizes women and alienates them (points I still generally am inclined to concede, but hardly to an absolute) - what if all that was just bullshit? What if catering more toward what would be ostensibly "female friendlier" did nothing to win over more female customers? Again, I'm not saying I necessarily believe this. I still have to believe that Blacked is at minimum generally more appealing to females than Dogfart, if not substantially more. I think that Alexa gender data was wonky. Regardless, I'm just gonna have to reiterate that the scientific standard is pretty much irrelevant unless someone does a similar study which debunks their findings. And it shouldn't be too hard either, should it, if in fact their applied diligence was so lacking and their conclusions were so inaccurate. Trans porn is pretty popular. I think we can all see that. It is at least inordinately popular when compared to the % of people who are trans. But being trans is not necessarily a readily apparent expressed trait. Most reports I've seen put the trans population at under 1%, or far below that actually. It's not calculated in percentage at all, but rather representatives per 10,000 or per 100,000. And yet trans porn is never more than 1 or 2 clicks away from mainstream vanilla. I wouldn't go as far as to call it ubiquitous, but it is bountiful. The other question it raises then is maybe the reason it is more prevalent in porn is because trans people are likelier to rely on porn? It would see understandable given how 99% of society probably isn't comfortable being sexually involved with a trans person. So maybe the amount of trans porn doesn't indicate a wider audience so much as it indicates a higher demand within a very small one, such that the production rate delivery per customer is higher than for the conventional customer. So their science may have been a bit spotty, but it still goes further into less explored territory and the takeaway presentation of their findings does a lot to destigmatize and eliminate shame around these subjects. I think those critics lashing out at them were knee-jerking early on and would probably have an entirely different attitude if they saw what the messaging looked like before large audiences. I just can't fathom how some folks could be that hostile. It's worse than the overblown GamerGate shitstorm. If the scientists identified as trans, and nothing else at all changed about their hypothesis, methodology, assertions or overall messaging, many of these critics would be praising them for bravely helping to mainstream the discussion, and thereby mainstream transexuality. But with all the grief among the selectively outraged critics, I think the most useful question should address the biggest claim the scientists make, which is that shemale erotica is among the most popular themes for heterosexual men across cultures from all around the world. At the very least, I think the critics should be willing to admit that this would be a reasonably surprising discovery for most people, even if the critics deny that it should ever have come as a surprise to them. Now, given that this is the chief discovery the authors use to pique interest in their research, I am curious to know if the critics question whether or not this is even true. Would they dispute that trans erotica is even that popular among heterosexual audiences in the first place? If so, why not produce some studies that empirically refute their claims? If not, then again, I simply don't see the purpose of making perfect the enemy of the good here. Why vilify them? Questions I still have: 1. Is trans porn really that popular among hetero men? To be clear, I do think it is inordinately popular in terms of the actual percentage of trans ppl in overall population. So I'm not saying it's popular among like half or 1/3, or even 1/10th of hetero porn viewers. I'm saying inordinate in terms of being popular/enjoyed by perhaps 5% of hetero audiences versus the less than 1% who actually ID as trans. 5% is a small percentage of the overall of course, but it's a magnitude of order beyond what we might expect. 2. Do trans people actually watch/consume porn at higher rates than non trans, and wouldn't that explain some of the inordinate over-representation of trans porn in the industry? 3. Is Blacked not really as popular among female porn consumers as Dogfart? If we sampled 100 random Blacked members and 100 random DogfartNetwork members, which brand would have more females? Ok, granted this isn't strictly on topic, but I think it might help make the case that everything we assume about genders and attitudes of porn is bullshit. lol
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Sep 21 2017 : 3:58AM
Not 100 percent sure what this thread full of walls of text is on about but will say from what I've read sex research is a tricky field as it has to rely on self-reporting which is far from reliable. As to trans porn, I've watched some of it, mostly what Silvera and Vespoli have shot and a few rare appearances in 70s and 80s features. Some of the trans women are beautiful for sure.
It seems like they could just re-do all those studies with the clitoral device instead of the vaginal one, no? Compared to the litany of difficult problems that science is unable to tackle, that seems like a relatively easy and inexpensive error to correct.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Sep 23 2017 : 12:43AM
Human behaviour is one of the things science has the most trouble with actually. Bias by the researchers, variety and diversity among people, the difficulty of being 'objective', getting a representative sample across all cultures, the near impossibility of getting a properly 'neutral' lab setting. Edited by - BlackSix on 9/23/2017 12:54:01 AM
^ Yep. ^^killbill - you would think so, but considering vast numbers of people of all generations think plowing a woman's vagina results in orgasm I guess it's predictable that scientists are measuring vaginal wetness. Don't get me started on the liberal misuse of "vagina" to mean and all parts of the vulva - I swear, that's the devil's work.
Theryn Meyer was permanently banned from Twitter yesterday. I just don't get it. Louis Farrakhan tweeted out a video calling for bloodshed in a race war just hours before the Dallas Police Department massacre, the perpetrator of which followed Farrakhan on social media. Yet Farrakhan still enjoys verification and protection by Twitter. I truly struggle to imagine what Theryn could have possibly said that is more harmful or threatening than Farrakhan, who has about half a million followers. Theryn has never advocated for violence, let alone tried to incite an all out war. It doesn't make sense.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Sep 26 2017 : 11:52AM
^Can't say that I'm familiar with Theryn outside of the one video.
[Link]
hoochimama Deactivated User
1437 Posts 5/10
Posted - Sep 26 2017 : 12:12PM
MOD: Leave your homophobia at the door. Respectful discussion is encouraged. Homophobua isn't. Edited by - Flash on 9/26/2017 1:24:16 PM ADT USER: I don't see how unjustly denigrating someone as a homophobe for expressing his porn preferences when requested is respectful, nor how censorship is conducive to discussion. Edited by - hoochimama on 9/26/2017 2:28:24 PM
When you come in and have to label people's sexuality like you did, you've crossed the line.
[Link]
hoochimama Deactivated User
1437 Posts 5/10
Posted - Sep 26 2017 : 8:33PM
^No, I talked about porn labels, as do we all else no discussion of them would be possible to begin with(there's one in the thread's very title). If you think enjoying a given type of porn defines someone's sexuality that's entirely on you. Edited by - hoochimama on 9/26/2017 8:43:53 PM
Flash, if hooch was talking about me, I don't mind. I'd actually like to know if they had a question. In fact, I'd welcome it. Isn't "questioning" a gender now anyway? Criticism is pretty useless, but inquiry should be encouraged.
I watch their Youtube channel sometimes. Let me just say I've never read or heard anything from Theryn that lands anywhere within the same ballpark in terms of provocation and hate speech as Farrakhan. And I don't support banning or censoring Farrakhan either for that matter. We don't effectively respond to speech we disagree with by stifling or censoring it. We best respond to speech with disagree with by using more speech, what we believe to be better speech. Shutting down convos only makes things worse. This results in secret societies which JFK rebuked. It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and it's the best metaphor for civil discourse and engaging dialectic. Anyway, I suspect Theryn got banned for repeatedly referring to someone as tranny. As trifling as that was of Theryn, this is still an absurd reason to ban a Twitter user. If someone doesn't like how someone else regards them, they can just block or mute them. It is a slippery slope to just start banning everyone who refers to someone else in unflattering terms. If we applied this rule consistently, Twitter would probably have to cut their user-base in half.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Sep 29 2017 : 11:49AM
^I don't see anything wrong with Twitter or other sites having community guidelines and enforcing them. This site, for example, would immediately devolve into a pornstar roast if there was no etiquette and no mods to enforce that etiquette. If the government begins restricting speech, then it's a different story and we're talking about issues of the first amendment, an amendment which is supposed to protect our speech from being fucked with by the state. Facebook, Twitter, etc. are not the state. Now, their members can criticize restrictions they oppose and they can launch campaigns to pressure those sites to alter their guidelines. They can also go further and become shareholders. At the end of the day, the people who run online communities will have to decide what they want those communities to be. For instance, I like Adult DVD Talk because they have restrictions on what we can and can't say about performers. If members could shit on pornstars freely, I'd leave. Now if someone wanted to create an actual law limiting that shitty speech, I'd oppose that because of the first amendment. Meanwhile, I'm grateful that Adult DVD Talk restricts speech. I don't know anything about Theryn and hardly anything about Twitter's rules, so I don't have an opinion either way, but "tranny" can sometimes be considered a slur.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Sep 30 2017 : 2:39AM
Twitter is enough of a cesspool as it is, it is almost impossible to get them to do anything against anyone unless there is significant media coverage. Youtube, Twitter and FB are companies providing a service and have no responsibility to allow unrestricted 'free speech.' You can get away with posting incredibly racist, misogynistic material including open advocation of political violence (left and right) on many of these services but they will instantly jump into action if there is any nudity or sexuality.
Youtube is undoubtedly better allowing people to post whatever they want, no matter how rude. Indeed the shame over nudity is absurd, but we are all undoubtedly better the freer we allow speech to be. I much prefer knowing how people actually feel, even if I disagree. It is better to hear people speak honestly than lie through their teeth or just conspire privately. It is especially bad to force people to seethe privately. Then you never know what they'll do. At least knowing can give you a clue. I was just debating a European transsexual on Twitter last week, and I always keep it civil. I avoid personal attacks or insults as they are pointless and only make the one dispensing them appear weak. Anyway, she managed to maintain a similarly civil tone and with enough patience she began to see where I was coming from. It's really not hard to do, and I think allowing people to speak however they please and use whatever language they like serves to benefit those who actually do demonstrate tact and civility by comparison. It makes it that much easier to spot who is to be taken more seriously, and who is to be taken less. In all my debates, I've never felt so insecure as to resort to muting anyone. I am always open to dialogue. But I suppose the temptation to shut down honesty is too strong for others. Anyone who tells you a major platform like Twitter or Facebook or Youtube is irredeemably "toxic" or a dumpster fire is simply a victim of wasting too much of their time getting owned in a debate or failing to distinguish trolls (honestly they are so rare these days as to be practically an endangered species by now) from sincere inquiries. Yes there is no shortage of hostility and rudeness on all these platforms. You could literally spend all day focusing on it and not even cover 1% of the so-called "offensive" banter that gets posted on a minutely basis. Or here's an idea: don't. The better you get at finding more constructive conversations, the better. There has to be some responsibility on your part before you go blaming "the system" for not properly protecting your feelings. If I was a model in the public eye and someone pointed out my birthmark or scars or some other trait I'm not thrilled about, so what? Obviously more people would disagree with it being a significant issue or how else could I be a model in the first place?
BTW, the moral of the story was that I'm now friends with said Euro-ts and I care about this person. And I don't think this would have developed if we were not allowed to speak our minds. At least Twitter isn't a total fail.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 12 2017 : 4:56AM
Eh, losers and loudmouths had to 'seethe privately' since the dawn of mankind and we got along okay. I don't see any advantage in allowing every anonymous jerk to derail and dominate the internet public square. Plus it has normalixed a bunch of nutter conspiracy bullshit. Like most technology, a mixed blessing at best. Edited by - BlackSix on 10/12/2017 5:11:17 AM
