evilthecat said:
People don't react like that because they're naturally turned off by lube. They do it because they feel ashamed that they, a heterosexual man of all things, were attracted to a body which happened to be surgically constructed. That shame isn't necessarily innate to people's sexuality.
It seems to me that there's an awful lot of presumption going on here. I don't think it's wise to presume the cause of others' motives unless there's some strong scientific evidence for the presumption. If there's
proof that some vague notion of heterosexuality and gender identity is the cause here then I'd be happy to hear it, but it seems more likely to me that they're avoiding the transgendered for the same reason people get iffy if one tells them one has a brain cyst or some such ailment: people tend to be naturally sexually repulsed by infirmity.
evilthecat said:
It's not really what I meant, but let's roll with it anyway.
I'm assuming you mean the physical structure of people's post-op (or even pre-op) bodies still? If you mean something else, you might have to explain.
No, not necessarily the physical. In the same way that a given personality can break a sexual relationship if it doesn't tie in with one's sexual selection criteria, so too could the mere fact that one is transgendered if that's against one's partner's criteria. Saying "But it's no big deal!" isn't very effective if to the beholder it
is a big deal.
evilthecat said:
I don't think it's impossible to be flexible even around people's bodies. I think it becomes so if you have an ingrained disgust of anything you wouldn't find in a mens magazine, but we always compromise on some things for the sake of others.
Blaming porn seems like a cop-out. I agree that the vast majority of our gender identities are socially learned and so it follows that, at least to some degree, sexual selection criteria must be socially learned too. However, it also stands to reason that at lest some of our sexual selection criteria
must be evolutionarily fixed because the species from which we've speciated lacked the advanced social learning that current humans posses (there's even good evidence that the progenitors of the
Homo genus,
Homo Habilis, lacked even basic weaponry abilities or the ability to form hunting parties). Since breeding
did occur in our recent ancestors
without socially learned sexual selection criteria then it follows that we must have some non-learned sexual selection criteria that are evolutionarily fixed.
evilthecat said:
It's not that it shouldn't be a factor, but for most of you it doesn't seem to be about any kind of attraction or otherwise to people's bodies. In fact, it sounds much more like a principle, something which would hold true even if the bodies in question were perfect, and that's something I don't understand at all. It's not something which reflects my experience of sexuality or anything I've actually observed in other people.
To put it bluntly, it seems to be a problem only heterosexuals have. Even most exclusively gay people recognize that there have been point of blurring, points at which their sexuality was tested or the limits pushed, even if it ultimately reinforced their commitment to their homosexuality. They may not talk about those things in public, but they also don't tend to feel anything like the same shame. For this reason, I can't see that shame as a 'natural' part of your sexuality.
Worse, I find it slightly degrading to both you, as a person who is made to feel shame at the mere possibility of 'failing' at heterosexuality, and to me as a person who has already lost that exclusive privilege of being a successful heterosexual. Until you learn not to fear being non-heterosexual, how do you expect those of us who are to feel that you respect us at all?
Firstly, I know you're annoyed at the situation, fairly so, but I'd rather you not direct that annoyance
at me as if I ought to apologise for a crime I've never committed. I'm me, not
all heterosexual males. Your argument is starting to sound very 'you people' and to lump entire groups together like that is intellectually lazy. I sincerely doubt you'd address a black person as 'you blacks'. However, I'm sure you intended no offence.
To be honest, I suspect the reason that (if true) heterosexuals are less likely to experiment with paraphilia than those of non-standard sexual orientation is much the same reason that people who sample minor illegal substances are more likely to go on to take more serious illegal substances than those who never took any at all: once one has broken the taboo once then there's little stopping one from doing so again.
However, there's a massive leap of logic from that position to 'all straight men fear all non-straight people'. This isn't the 50s. Unless one is from a
really backwater town then this position just doesn't ring true. Out of my friends, roughly one third are of a non-standard sexual orientation, be it homosexual, bisexual or genderqueer (admittedly, gender issues are divorced from sexuality, but I'm lumping them in for ease of writing). I don't fear those with non-standard sexual orientations and I don't know
anyone (outside of the lower-class community) who does.
There is a giant leap of logic from 'I don't find you attractive for whatever physical or psychological reason' to 'I don't find you attractive
because I fear you'.
evilthecat said:
Ugh, I'm not explaining myself well. Suffice to say that my point wasn't that you should ignore your sexual selection criteria, just to be aware that there might be more to do your sexual selection criteria than meets the eye. Especially if you could theoretically meet someone and progress quite far into a relationship with them before realizing they were transgendered. Heck, you might not necessarily even realize at all - modern surgical techniques aren't that bad.
I've answered this point above, so I'll briefly reiterate: Infirmity is off putting. If trangenderism is viewed by an individual as an infirmity then it will be off putting. This isn't due to some evil of heterosexuality, this is due to millions upon millions of years of evolution teaching us to avoid mates who can't bear or look after our young.