"Your Dating 'Preferences' Are Discriminatory"

[Immitis]

Yeah. I like my women without a penis.

so you've been having the hots for this person for awhile, take them home and find out they have a penis and you kick them out? despite having been attracted to them the entire time before that?

i dont believe you. i think you think you would, but im pretty sure 9 out of 10 people would just do it doggy style.

[Kathandira]

after transitioning its usually hard to tell whether someone is trans or not anyways.

if you saw a girl, thought she was hot and wanted to bang her and then wouldnt because you find out shes trans thats kinda shitty and its your own mental stuff getting in the way.

obviously its more complicated if your longterm goal is to have children though, but theres plenty of infertile women anyways.

the problem is when people think about trans people they think of a guy or a girl in drag or someone whos just came out and hasnt been on hormones very long. although to be frank part of this is that instead of getting trans actors to play trans characters most people cast straight men or women to play the characters so the image people have in their heads of trans people are mostly of crossdressers.

you trying to tell me you wouldnt sex this girl up just because she has a penis?

If she still has a penis, I would not. Im not a fan of anal sex. And really enjoy vaginal intercourse.

If she no longer has a penis, I might consider it.

- - - Updated - - -

You have no idea what you are talking about. Light skin being more liked than dark skin predates western influence on beauty ideals in asia.

You are correct.

Light skin means less time outdoors working the fields, which means you must be of high class.

Same applied to heavier people. It means they can afford to eat in excess meaning they were wealthier.

[Immitis]

I don't really get where the (somewhat wide-spread?) notion that a majority of Trans women have a penis comes from, though.

But yes. That does still bring the problem of not being able to have kids with you. And while there are plenty of infertile cis women too, I can still see it being a...issue for some.


That is nice and all. I am still not attracted to masculinity.

because in alot of places it is not covered by health insurance. the vast majority of the time it is not because they want to keep their penis they just cant afford to remove it (or in some cases, if they remove it, that takes away almost all possibility of them being able to star in pornography so they keep it so they can make a living, not that all or even most trans want to do porn but it is a viable job for alot of trans people struggling to afford their treatments)

[Celista]

you trying to tell me you wouldnt sex this girl up just because she has a penis?

There are some very attractive trans women out there (I don't really think that is a good example, maybe Gigi Gorgeous), and maybe this is my ignorance showing but I don't think all the bits downstairs are same for trans men and women, right? That might be more important to some people than others.

I don't think I'd rule out someone trans from dating per se if there was a connection, but one of the reason I like dating guys is because they have certain bits that I enjoy playing with, if you catch my drift.

[Nitro Fun]

so you've been having the hots for this person for awhile, take them home and find out they have a penis and you kick them out? despite having been attracted to them the entire time before that?

i dont believe you. i think you think you would, but im pretty sure 9 out of 10 people would just do it doggy style.

Straight people would say no when they discover the penis. I'd probably berate that person for lying to me since I want kids too.

[PassingBy]

If she still has a penis, I would not. Im not a fan of anal sex. And really enjoy vaginal intercourse.

If she no longer has a penis, I might consider it.

No boobs, no ass, too skinny, really weird face bone structure.
Plenty of things to not be attracted to even if she doesn't have a penis tho.

[God Save The King]

OK this is 100% "sexuality is a choice" territory

You're saying gay men can be "changed" to not discount women as potential sexual partners by reflecting on their preference for men - this is in essence what the church fanatics said about "re-educating" homosexuals

I know you didn't intend to say that, but this is where the "everything is a social construct" idiocy ends up

Okay so I'm not saying they can be changed. I'm saying there's no harm in having an open mind. Maybe they're not actually 100% gay, and more bisexual? You wouldn't know that if you didn't give people a shot. Like I said, it's a fine line and hard to articulate. People can have preferences, people can have deal-breakers. People can also discover something new about themselves.

There's a difference, a fine line, between saying they can be changed/reeducated (as if they're doing something wrong), but they may realize they're not as set in their ways as they believed. It doesn't hurt to give people a chance. Again I'm not saying there's something wrong with them; but I don't believe people every truly know themselves, and you may surprise yourself.

Hopefully I articulated my point a little better. Sorry for any confusion

[Deleted]

because in alot of places it is not covered by health insurance. the vast majority of the time it is not because they want to keep their penis they just cant afford to remove it

I am well aware of that. But there seems to be that common notion (on the internet?) that Trans woman = penis. Which, as a generalized statement, is not really true. I wouldn't know the % though.

[Deleted]

Trump will end this shit.

[God Save The King]

sorry but not everyone is pansexual.

it be cool if everyone was. but people cant change what they are and arent attracted to

I'm aware of both of those. The point I was trying to get across, is there's a difference between discrimination and preference. I'm not saying you have to date anyone who approaches you. But does it really kill you to give them a go, simply at the chance of a serious connection?

[serenka]

No boobs, no ass, too skinny, really weird face bone structure.
Plenty of things to not be attracted to even if she doesn't have a penis tho.

his head/face looks so out of proportion with the rest :\ just looks a really really skinny guy dressed as a woman, as you said their are no boobs there at all, and paired with a manly face slathered in makeup ... yeah thats a no from me.

the first picture looks a bit more normal, and at a glace i'd say of course thats clearly a woman, but that 2nd pic id question.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump will end this shit.

and how will he do that?

[SidFwuff]

The newest idiocy out of the SJW camp, and I so called this a year ago:



TL;DW version: it doesn't matter if you're ok with transgender rights, if you won't date a tran, then you're a fucking bigot. If you're a man and you won't date a trans woman because you don't like penises, then you're a bigot. If you're a woman and you won't date a trans man because you want the D, then you're a bigot. And if you won't date a potential person because they are trans and thus you can't have kids with them, the old school biological way, then you're a fucking bigot.

Yeah, keep trying to cram more of those radical ideas down the mainstream people's throats, SJW's and other lefties. And keep wondering why people won't vote for you or people like you.

"'Gay conversion therapy' has been proven not to work BUT you can unlearn your own prejudices"

And that sums it up.

It's a pansexual (omnisexual?) woman that assumes that everyone is just like them- just like how heterosexuals assumed everyone was just like them too. What the woman calls "learned prejudices" was considered "mental illness" by heterosexuals a few decades ago.

[God Save The King]

That is nice and all. I am still not attracted to masculinity.

That's totally fine.

[Kathandira]

No boobs, no ass, too skinny, really weird face bone structure.
Plenty of things to not be attracted to even if she doesn't have a penis tho.

All of those things look fine to me. But if there was still a penis, I wouldn't be able to proceed. Im not interested in giving her a blow job, and I don't want to have a penis in my butt. Also, I don't like anal, and I can't just live with blow jobs and hand jobs for life.

But as for a one night stand, if she understood and just wanted to blow me that night, Id likely be game.

[Celista]

Trump will end this shit.

I'm going to laugh really hard if Trump is such a terrible president that gender/identity politics become even more prevalent due to his inflammatory behavior.

[Deleted]

But does it really kill you to give them a go, simply at the chance of a serious connection?

Dating someone that you are not really attracted to can very easily lead to someone getting seriously hurt, though. If you realize later on that your initial feeling was right etc.

[God Save The King]

Dating someone that you are not really attracted to can very easily lead to someone getting seriously hurt, though. If you realize later on that your initial feeling was right etc.

I can concede to that. Sometimes I spend so much time in the theoretical world I forget about the practical :P (I'm a theorist at work)

[Deleted]

But does it really kill you to give them a go, simply at the chance of a serious connection?

You really are saying "gay men should just give women a chance" - maybe if they just tried hard enough, and found a woman they could really connect with?

Yeah no - this is a very bad road, and really shows the fundamental error in current identity politics and how this "everything is a social construct" ends up being just as regressive as religious fundamentalism

[Scathbais]

Rather be "radical left" than alt-qaeda.

Funny that the radical left and al'qeda have a lot in common: nuts-o religious beliefs, intolerance for anyone who doesn't share their religion, and a penchant for trying to destroy anyone who they believe offended their religion.

The parallels are quite scary.

[Mistame]

It's funny how that little clip got you all triggered like crazy though.

It's funny how critique is now "triggered" if the person you're responding to has a different opinion.

What evidence or logic do you have that she's even remotely odd?

Her perspective is abnormal, therefore "odd". She also seems to be confused on the difference between intimate and casual relations, in that intimate needs somehow take a back burner to things like acceptance/tolerance, feelings, etc. Which is silly.

I think there is a bit of misunderstanding here.

There is, to some degree.

But that there is more to a person than their genitals, or their disability, or whatever else you feel defines them on the surface.

Of course there's more to a person than those factors. But a relationship without mutually acceptable intimacy is not an intimate relationship.

Would you date someone who was physically disabled? (Your answer here)

Would you continue to date someone who just became physically disabled? (Your answer here)

For both the answer is the same: It depends on the disability. If they become mentally dependent (like a child), it's actually illegal to be intimate with them, so no. If they're disfigured, unable to be intimate, or dependent on someone else to help them with biological functions, feeding or any major disabilities, then no.

If you didn't know the person at all, you might see them only for their disability. This is pretty discriminatory as you don't actually know the person at all. You are judging them for what you see on the surface. But if you have been with someone for a while, and have developed a loving relationship with them, but then they became disabled, you would (in most cases) still love this person, and likely do anything in your power to make them happy, since that is what you do when you love someone. You would do this, because you know them, and you know that they are more than their disability.

This is where I'll have to disagree. The difference, to me, between an intimate and casual relationship is intimacy. If we're not banging, we're just friends. If my SO becomes unable/unwilling to perform intimately, for any reason, the intimate relationship is over. As far as the "found out after x years they used to be a man" bit (the near impossibility of not noticing something a bit off) aside, I have no tolerance for liars. None. The difference between that and a disability is that I won't stay friends with liars. Anyone unable to layout important truths beforehand is not worth my time and something like being a former man is pretty important.

I'm aware of both of those. The point I was trying to get across, is there's a difference between discrimination and preference. I'm not saying you have to date anyone who approaches you. But does it really kill you to give them a go, simply at the chance of a serious connection?

Seems like it was pointed out already, but still. This is silly. There's no logical reason to date someone you're not attracted to.