I think it’s safe to say, you should tell people BEFORE you go and get down to business. Just like you should tell about anything else major. (STDs, any current relationships, etc)
I can’t either. If I were to start dating a woman and things were progressing well to the point where we started talking about our genitals I’d be disappointed if I found out she had a penis. But given that transgender individuals are at risk of violence, discrimination, and other indignities just for being who they are I wouldn’t fault her for not advertising her status up front. I don’t believe a transgender individual has an obligation to reveal their genitals (figuratively I mean) on a first date.
I agree 100%. I don’t think deception with things that could be life altering or life threatening is appropriate. “Pre-meeting” and this is probably just me sounded a bit formal is all.
I imagine in those contexts, it might be normal to share more information upfront.
If not, then surprise is going to be pretty normal in that environment.
Considering Stoya is, among other things, a pornstar ; I’d say she has a rough (sometimes very rough) idea of what sexual intercourse is, as well as hands-on experience with a broad set of its infinite varieties ;).
I don’t really get the notion of asking “soooo dick or hole ?” on a date, much less a first date - maybe I just don’t do dating the way y’alls do ? I mean I legit do not understand. You go on a date with someone and you talk and laugh and see each other again and maybe at some point down the line there will be sex. But maybe there won’t, for any number of reasons. And if there isn’t, have you wasted your time ? No. You’ve met someone, maybe had some good times, maybe made a friend. That’s a good thing, yes ? And maybe you end up falling in love, so much so that you’re willing to overlook the genitalia part, give it a try for the sake of that one person who’s special to you. Or maybe you just can’t get over that particular hurdle (and I’m not judging here - I strongly suspect that would be my case) and can be platonic lovers or intimate friends or what have you and that’s fine too, certainly not a waste of time.
What I mean is, dating and seduction is part of the fun, not some boring prelude to “the only thing that matters” to be expedited through ; and a date or relationship isn’t a “time waster” if it doesn’t involve fluid exchanges.
On the other hand, if the point of the exercise is to forego any kind of emotional connection and jump straight to the tab A, slot B stuff (or the slot B, slot B stuff ; who gives a shit) ; then presumably that’s what the both of you are looking for. At which point you might as well be bluntly open in your (mutual) objectification and positively claim you’re looking for slot B, not tab A or vice versa.
By definition you’re asserting this based on the ones you’ve positively clocked. Which also by definition excludes all the ones who pass well enough that you haven’t, the exact number of which you have no fuckin’ idea.
Anyone who signs up for quick hookups should understand they are engaging in very risky behavior. If a person doesn’t want any surprises (and this also includes reactionary violence), then they shouldn’t have quick hookups with people they barely know.
No one with food allergies blindly chooses a restaurant and blindly chooses anything off the menu. They carefully contemplate whatever it is they are about to consume. It would be pretty stupid for a person to complain that a restaurant deceived them by not including a list of allergens in its advertisements, especially when such a list would have been provided to them if only they had asked.
Do you think people who only want to date cisgender women are “chickenshit transphobes”? Do you feel it is okay for a person to be labeled a “chickenshit transphobe” if they only want to date cisgender women?
No, but I do think that people who worry so much about the horrible risk of potentially, maybe, going on ONE DATE with a transgender person by accident ARE chickenshit transphobes.
I would agree that anyone who thinks there is a “horrible risk” of going on one date is a moron.
Quite right. As mentioned in the earlier threads there is no movement afoot to force anyone to date those they’d rather not, plus, contrary to what some people seem to imagine, the vast majority of people you run into every day are for lack of a better word sex/gender “typical” cishets.
Though as some have mentioned this is one of those situations where the old school “first get to know the person, THEN try to get them in bed if interested” sequence works quite right.
Yeah, the terror of spending a few hours with a transgender person is ridiculous.
After I got divorced a few years ago and started dating again, having things end because I found out she was trans would honestly be in the top 50% of results. Still married, super racist, was actually trying to sell me solar panels for my roof, asked for a ride home because she’d permanently lost her license due to DUIs, I would have gladly skipped all those instead.
I think it’s a bit moronic to describe a man who does not want to date a woman with a penis as a moron.
That is moronic. Luckily, nobody is doing that.
I feel like we need to make a distinction between being attracted to women in general and being specifically interested in sexual activity with female genitals. Something like the difference between being asexual and being aromantic: perhaps we should distinguish between being heteroromantic and being heterosexual. Or perhaps the important thing isn’t hetero/homo but masculine/feminine; so someone could be gynoromantic or androromantic and that might be a better way to put it.
Stoya is bi and Rich is gay, and both are notably liberal when it comes to sex. That’s part of what makes the column fun to read. But they also seem unable to comprehend (or unwilling to consider) people who don’t match their own attitudes. And also notably, both of them are attracted to men, so sometimes their advice to people who aren’t falls flat.
Powers &8^]
The andro/gyno thing doesn’t really solve the “issue” here in the thread, but I’d prefer it anyway. The basis of homosexual/heterosexual is on you yourself having a gender that falls somewhere on the ends of the binary. Can an agender person really describe themselves as hetero or homo accurately if they themselves are neither a man or a woman? So, personally, I’d be all for an androsexual or gynosexual nomenclature instead because it removes the gender of the person saying it from the situation, but makes it clear the type of people they’re looking for.
I personally have genital “requirements” if you will - I know the relationship will fail without them. I still don’t think it’s normal to get so caught up in needing to know this information before you go on a date with someone. That’s just something you learn like every other possible dealbreaker. Get over it.
Not in the least (and I never said or implied that).
The people who come across as chickenshit and/or transphobes are the people who (a) feel it’s extremely important that they never have any dating contact with any transgender women, AND (b) refuse to take responsibility for making it clear upfront to potential dating partners that they don’t want to date transgender women.
Those are the folks who are whining that transgender women are somehow obligated to proclaim their transgender status pre-emptively to all and sundry on dating sites, so that they (the chickenshit/transphobes) will be able to avoid them without admitting that they want to avoid them.
There is nothing necessarily transphobic about simply preferring not to date transgender women, nor is there anything chickenshit about honestly stating your preference upfront if it’s extremely important to you to keep transgender women out of your dating pool.
I’m responding to this:
If you don’t think someone putting “cisgender women only” makes someone look like a “chickenshit transphobe”, then why would you say this?
Oh, and referring that back to the post you quoted: It is possible that some cisgender women would view any “no transgender women” statement in a dating profile as evidence of chickenshit transphobia, and would avoid that person in consequence.
That’s a risk that a non-chickenshit guy has to be willing to run if it’s really important to him to be absolutely certain about excluding transgender women from his dating pool. It’s not the responsibility of transgender women to proclaim their status pre-emptively just so he won’t have to run that risk.
Anyway, why would a guy who is extremely unwilling to date transgender women want to date a cisgender woman who finds his extreme unwillingness to date transgender women unattractive? If you openly declare your exclusive preference for cisgender women, you screen out not only the transgender women but also the cisgender women who consider your exclusive preference an unattractive characteristic. Win-win.
ETA: Simulpost with your follow-up, sorry for the confusion.
Nitpick: I maintain that having an exclusive preference for dating cisgender women doesn’t necessarily mean that somebody is a chickenshit transphobe. I make no claims that pre-emptively declaring such a preference might not make somebody look like a chickenshit transphobe in the eyes of some other people.
Indeed, as I noted in my previous post, some women scanning profiles on dating sites possibly would interpret such a declaration that way. More importantly, though, my point was that guys who refuse to put “cisgender women only” or some such statement in their profiles, even though they strongly want to exclude transgender women from their dating pool, are refusing because they’re afraid of looking like chickenshit transphobes in the eyes of some cisgender women.