Columns Apr 2, 2014 at 4:00 am



@163 EricaP, @164 mydriasis, @171 nocutename, and @175 lolorhone: Thank you and bless you all!

@205 - at the risk of further angering the relativists and tumblr-social-justice-set, I'm gonna speculate that in a few years we're gonna find that brain wiring is part of both gender identity and sexual attraction (aka orientation). Critics of the current tech argue that FMRI analysis amounts to modern day phrenology complete with flashy computer imagery to give it the trappings of science(1!!!111!1) and they may be correct, but those researchers are really homing in on brain structures and imagery.

My recollection for developmental bio is that default human development leads to "female" (see AIS women), and that "male" is testosterone mediated...and that has some complex nuances (see birth order effect). Of course biology is not destiny, but the argument these things are all cultural decoration and artificial constructs is lacking.

You bring me back to my favorite question: why are some lesbians drawn to 'butch' dykes and some gay men drawn to feminine twinks? If gender is nothing more than cultural decoration, doesn't that make butch dykes and their femme lipstick girlfriends straight?
LW1 - Sucks that he lied to you about having a penis. "I want to wait for PIV sex" communicates that a penis exists. Really sucks that he asked for secrecy when he came out to you. But pressuring someone to have sex is the most dangerous attitude here. No means no. Even if you would feel much better with sex. Even if you can't get it otherwise. Consent isn't optional. Gross. This guy seems to have the general rapist attitude; sex isn't easy to get, but it's necessary, and consent is just an obstacle to overcome. He may not find anyone into a closeted cis woman, but this alternate way of finding sex needs to be firmly shut down.

I see a lot of sensitivity to trans lifestyle here. I never got why taking hormones and altering your body entitles you to more sensitivity. Maybe because I believe gender is a social construct, and don't see a need to get or get rid of boobs as different from a need to have that special tattoo or get rid of some weight. Of course it alters your attraction to different people. Of course you are going to be more attractive to athletes than chubby chasers when you go from obese to fit. More attractive to punks than executives when you get a prominent tattoo. Your dating pool does change when you make changes to yourself.

His dating pool changed from lesbians to women into men and pussy, in other words bisexual or queer straight women. From a large lake to a pond. If the alterations mean enough to compensate, then own that. If you love your new body enough, you'll find someone else that will love it too.

NCA is not a bigot. She's been called too "good". IMO "good" is doing good for yourself and not hurting other people. She's hurting herself by staying around someone who wants her to be uncomfortable. He knows that she doesn't want to but he's asking anyway. She'd be a better person to walk away from those who can't accept who she is and what she likes. It's not clear if she's turned off by pussy or by liars, but in either case she is not hurting anyone. If someone is hurt or angry because you are not what they want, it is their problem.

Or am I wrong? Will Dan apologize and deeply consider his feelings because he won't drink my girl juice?
@205, just because the parts match the chromosomes doesn't mean that being transgender isn't physiological. There is a lot to our genetics we still don't understand.

As for why we all get lumped together, politics. We are each such a small minority that by banding together we can have more clout.

But the truth is that even if it were just gay men it is still misleading to term us as one lump group of community. Some of us have nothing in common with others who are gay other than liking dick. We aren't one community but rather a bunch of smaller communities that share one minor trait but have to band together to fight the good fight.

But we are no more a single community than straight people make up a single community.
The "transman" raped her. He withheld material information - information that would have altered her consent and which he knew would alter her consent - in order to penetrate her.

Dan Savage goes to a bizarre trans activist to contribute to his column. Not an experienced criminal attorney. Not a psychiatrist or psychologist or ethicist. An activist who says things like "Trans guys have amazing dicks that are different from cis guys’ dicks (surgery or no surgery)" Trans activism is sounding more and more like a religious cult every day.

And this activist not only lectures the rape victim, but also makes ridiculous statements about how Marcus's gender is "constitutionally protected" information. The Constitution concerns the powers of government and the rights of citizens vis a vis the government. It has absolutely nothing to do with the duty of one individual to disclose to another individual in anticipation of intercourse. And while the information may be very private, that privacy ends when the rights of others begins. If you never want to disclose, don't have sex.

Absolutely disgusting.
Three-ways with two women are never awkward.
@173: Totally. Marcus appears to not only be poor romantic partner material, but also poor platonic friend material. Who wants to populate their world with the untrustworthy and selfishly manipulative? Hopefully NCA will make clear the reasons and the impact on NCA so that Marcus gets a learning experience out of it, to spare the future potential partners such poor treatment. Marcus' life challenges are not NCA's to fully shoulder, they are Marcus'.

@180: Why wouldn't a transperson want to be treated as a transperson (as what, fundamentally and in totality of their life, they are)?

@208: Yes. The earlier discussion of the rapey aspects had died down. But. (Not a lawyer here, but don't need to be to know this.) Sex without valid consent is pretty much the definition of rape. Consent even when explicitly granted through both body language and words may not be valid. Consent may be invalidated by age (under the age of consent), alcohol, drugs, or mistaken identity of the partner. There is case law for rape conviction for having pretended to the the partner's spouse. Marcus, by representing indistinguishably from a straight male, falls closer to the deceptive rapey end of the spectrum than the totally honest no legal problem here end of the spectrum. Additionally, there are aspects in NCA's letter that are warning signs she's on the road to becoming an abused partner. Dishonesty, manipulation, isolation (don't discuss what's happened between us with ANY of your friends).

Dan identifies as gay, gayer, gayest. I identify as straight, straighter, ... to the point of not understanding why anyone, even straight women find men attractive, but love it when its effects come my way. Associated with that is a total disinterest in seeing guys together, or in dating someone that is genetically male, regardless of how the bits have been arranged or rearranged, or in dating someone who has been rearranged to appear male, or appears ambiguous gender, or is unhealthy physically or mentally, or who has had a lot of augmentation. I want a natural woman. It is not up for negotiation. I've known women who had the complementary set of inclinations: would not look at girl on girl, etc. NCA has a right to her own nonnegotiables. Among those can be: a partner with integrity, equipped with the plumbing style of her choice, the life history to match, the physical possibility down the road of perhaps someday being the father of her children, etc.
Dear NCA: You are NOT a "bigot". What was done to you is called "rape by deception" and it's a felony. Prosecute her lying ass.
Marcus knew what he was doing in grooming and raping a pushover like OP. Anyone with self-respect would have called the police. Why is everyone here so concerned with not hurting this rapist's feelings?

"Rape by Deception" is considered a crime in a few states and is not a felony. There is considerable doubt that what Marcus could be considered rape. Many things that make us angry are not prosecutable.

If a man picks up a woman in a bar, tells her he's not married, and has sex with her, he may be a CPOS, but it would be hard to write a law that would make what he did a prosecutable crime. Adultery, yes; rape, no.
Well then, if there's no legal recourse for a victim, she should just out him/her. Real women should stop protecting their rapists or whatever you want to call creeps who do what Marcus did.

And BTW, if people are seriously discussing whether OP is a "bigot," and how she can let Marcus down gently, this is major GASLIGHTING. Like the victim is responsible for the well being of the creep who took advantage of her.

And some of you are pretending that a penis is just something attached to a neutral body, like the rest of the body doesn't have a sex. You just sew a penis on a woman, and voila! a man.

Marcus, with or without a penis, is a woman, and some women aren't into pussy. This is perfectly okay. I'm a woman and I like pussy, but if someone isn't into that, it's okay. People who would go on about homophobia or whatever are just rapists and rape enablers who don't think women have the right to say no.
For anyone who hasn't read strangeway's post in 195, it's worthwhile, really sums up this whole comments section. Strangeway, please write more books for us. Yours is a valuable contribution.

196-Venn-- I look forward to more coherency but think I understand (and appreciate) your point even when you're not communicating at your best.

On the subject of secret keeping. The time to ask for something to be kept in confidence is not after the secret has been revealed. Even now when someone asks me to keep a secret, I usually answer that if it's really secret, better not tell me because, while I consider myself discrete, I reserve the right to talk things over with uninvolved friends.

199Finch and 200nocute-- Thanks for your thoughts. Finch-- There was nothing a man could do about impotence (what we called it in those days) from type 1 diabetes. I don't think there's anything that can be done about it now. I'm still not sure there's anything much that could be done for such severe premature ejaculation that he couldn't thrust at all. It was a matter of enter and come.

In the situations I named, I was young, and I chose not to say anything to the men in question for fear of hurting their feelings so much I would ruin them. In one case, I out and out lied. I made up a specious reason for the break-up (and granted there was plenty wrong with the short-lived relationship anyway, but I came up with a particularly ridiculous reason). I'll never know if that was the right decision. I've come to terms with the idea that it was the right decision for me at the time.

The part that was NOT the right decision then or now was how guilty I felt for breaking up with guys for what I told myself were shallow reasons. That's what I would like to convey to NCA. You absolutely can feel bad about a situation without feeling responsible for it. The logic of "poor guy has been through so much and here I am adding to his distress" doesn't cut it. It's not logical. It brings you down and doesn't help him. If you can learn now that not all bad feeling stems from guilt, you're way ahead of the game.
I was "deceived" for twice as long once. It was not about transgenders, but it was about sex anyway. I felt really bad and upset, but at the end I put myself in the other person shoes and decided even if it was wrong and stupid, It was underestandable and human. So I eventually forgave

Now, accusing Marcus of rape just shows how mean and bigot some people are. its just disgusting
@Crinoline: I think that the phenomenon of feeling guilty for breaking up with someone for reasons that seem "shallow" and which furthermore are beyond the person's control is really a female one.

I have broken up with men over some sexual reasons, usually having to do with a combo of penis size and technique/sexual styles, although in several of the cases, there were other factors as well. In the case of sexual reasons, I often find myself saying "I'm just not feeling it," which is true. The reason I just don't feel it may be because his penis is too small for me, but there's no need to explain why I'm not feeling it, and that statement in itself is completely true.

I don't think I've ever felt guilty for breaking up with a relatively short-term boyfriend over sexual issues--I've sometimes felt frustrated with myself that sexual satisfaction means so much to me and is dependent on some objective factors, as well as some unpredictable and often elusive chemistry. I really want to be partnered, and when I reject an otherwise good and interested man (not so easy to come by when you're an overweight, late-middle-aged woman with partial custody of a teenager) because the sex isn't doing it for me, I can have a moment of wishing sex wasn't so important to me. But it is. And I've learned that while some things can get better with time and motivation, some things just can't or don't.

The only breakup method I've ever felt guilty about was the one I used when I was 16: a fade away--not returning phone calls, being "too busy" to talk when he called or wanted to get together, generally being a jerk (it was complicated by the fact that we shared a social circle and I still had to see him after that, so it wasn't the full-on disappearing act). In my defense, I was young and he was coming on so strongly with the "I love yous" and the 10 page letters (yes, real delivered-though-the-mail, written-on-paper letters. Remember I'm old) and the stuffed animals appearing on the doorstep, that I freaked out. But I didn't have the courage to have the uncomfortable conversation. It wasn't that I was so convinced it would crush him, as that I hate confrontations and unpleasantness, and I wanted to avoid that. Still, I felt guilty; I knew I hadn't behaved properly.

Fast forward a few years (aged 19-22), and I was the recipient of that kind of break-up many times. I understood what it feels like to be left in limbo and getting mixed signals (are we still going out? Does he like me or doesn't he? Is he going to call? He said he'd call--why didn't he? Why doesn't he just tell me he doesn't want to see me, so at least I'd know for sure. . . but he said _______, so how come ______? etc.).
That's when deeper guilt set in, when I had a taste of what I'd put him through.

So I vowed I'd never do that again. And I haven't. Even after a first date when I suppose a fade away is acceptable to some (although that is a pretty easy email to write). No matter how awkward or uncomfortable the conversation, I clearly, tactfully and politely tell a man I'm not interested in or no longer interested in that I'm not interested. It's what a grown up does. But I don't offer an explanation beyond INFI or "it's just not working for me," and rarely does anyone press for details. If he does, though, I gently explain in more detail how I see us as sexually incompatible. It's not that he's wrong or defective; it's that we don't mesh the way we should for this to work.

As to that long-ago breakup-by-assholery I mentioned, I've let myself off the hook for it years ago. I was young and inexperienced, and I probably didn't injure him in any lasting way!
If you lie to someone because you STRONGLY suspect that if they knew the truth they would NOT want to have sex with you, then yes, that is rape by deception, whether it happens to be illegal in your jurisdiction or not. The act is reprehensible, unethical, abusive and grounds for at the very least complete social shunning by the person deceived - for life.

If it were a man in his 40's pretending on-line to be a "teen" in order to arrange a sexual relationship with an 18-year-old ("of age") high school girl - persuading her into all kinds of sexual behavior over the phone before their first in-person meeting, arranging their first assignation in a dark car in a dark park so she couldn't see his true age - we'd all understand that he is a monster.

How is this different, ethically? Lying to get laid is lying to get laid. Manipulating another person into doing things sexually that you KNOW they'd be appalled about if they knew the truth is beyond the pale. That kind of emotional abuse is almost worse than stranger rape, because Marcus got inside her head and her heart for months! At least with stranger rape you know where you stand from the first instant: mortal enemies.

With Marcus-style rape, NCA experienced what con artists call "the long con". Her mind and heart were filled with months (!) of trust shattered, dreams betrayed, hopes crushed - she'll never be as trusting, as open, as comfortable, as eager around a new lover as she was pre-Marcus. What Marcus did to her psyche is utterly, unforgivably vile.
@220: I don't think you can call what Marcus did rape. He was wrong, very wrong, but he was probably terrified and hoped that once NCA really knew liked him, she'd be willing to overlook the reality of his physiognamy. It's not the same as an adult pretending online to be a teen so he can get into her pants.

Worse to me than Marcus' lies initially of omission (letting the lw continue to believe he had all the standard male equipment) and then obfuscation (telling her he wasn't ready to have PIV sex because it was so important to him) is the way he manipulated her after he disclosed his status.

Trying to use guilt and the lw's desire not to be a bigot in order to keep having sex with her is to my mind the more offensive behavior.

Marcus is immature and showed really poor judgement. He might be an utter asshole, or he might just be a little bit of an asshole. He's not on the level of a sexual predator like the kind you described. It's entirely possible that NCA will walk away from this relatively unscathed emotionally. This could just be one of the jerks she once briefly dated. We all get hurt dating, and the kind of pain Marcus caused is unlikely to be that severe or lasting in nature. NCA certainly doesn't have to be suspicious that every guy she dates doesn't actually have a penis. No actual harm was done. She gave consent under the circumstances, and just because the circumstances were later revealed to be different than she had every reason to suspect still doesn't invalidate the consent she gave at the time.

So not only is is not comparable to rape, but as the mother of a teenager who was very, very violently raped at the hands of a stranger, I get really angry when I hear someone compare a story like this to stranger rape. Three years on and both my children are still suffering from PTSD; all our lives have been irrevocably altered. Don't compare these two things.
If what Marcus did was rape, then it's also rape when an asexual has sex with someone in the early stages of a relationship, hoping that their partner will come to love them and accept their asexuality before they finally disclose it; with the basis for complaint of rape charge being that the so-called rape victim wants regularly scheduled sex with their so-called rapist and can't get any.

I hope it is obvious how ridiculous this line of reasoning is.

Literally anything could turn out to be a deal-breaker after the fact, once it comes to light. If consent can be withdrawn retroactively because of something unknown at the time sex was had, literally any sex act can become rape by fiat, literally years later, completely irrespective of the degree of enthusiastic consent obtained and exhibited at the time.
@avast2006: Remember that recent letter from the woman who broke up with a boyfriend who said that since the sex he had had with her had been consented to because she led him to believe they'd be together forever, he now considered it to be rape? That's this line of reasoning brought to its (il)logical conclusion!

@Susan B Journey:
1) From the letter as written, I think Marcus was looking for a real relationship with this girl, not just sex, which is another reason the comparison is invalid.

2)People lie to get sex all the time and in lot of different ways. They lie by exaggerating their feelings of affection; they lie by misleading about their marital status or net worth; they lie by saying that they're in open relationships when they're not.
"No, those pants don't make you look fat;" "You made a really good point in that meeting;" "My wife doesn't understand me;" "That's my favorite movie, too;" "I love you."

Where do breast enhancement surgeries, pectoral implants, false eyelashes, face lifts, toupees or hair plugs, Rogaine, makeup, push-up bras, shoe lifts, booty pop underwear, spray tans fit into the lies perpetuated that are designed to get sex schema?

And if we're going to really delve into all the lies people tell in order to get sex, Marcus' was at least for a (somewhat more) justifiable reason. Read strangeway's post @195. Marcus has a lot more to lose than simple sexual rejection (not that I excuse what he did). I haven't turned into a Marcus apologist, but he's no rapist, and certainly no more a rapist than anyone who's ever said they "really liked" someone when what they meant was I would really like to have sex with you and that's what I have to say to get it.
I would never have had sex with that guy if he'd disclosed his love for heavy metal music. And I explicitly asked him what kind of music he liked. He was lying when he said he liked easy listening and power ballads. Rapist! I hope the statute of limitations hasn't run out--this was 23 years ago.
There was a guy who called into the podcast recently: he'd had sex for the first time with his girlfriend, whose body he said he'd thought was great before he'd seen her naked, and discovered the scars from the plastic surgery she'd had in order to make herself more attractive--more fuckable, if you will--to him (and others). She hadn't mentioned the surgical procedures before they'd taken their clothes off.

He was no longer attracted (kind of like NCA discovering that her boyfriend has a vagina instead of a penis). He is wondering if he can still be with her, if he can find a way to be attracted to her. He feels guilty, like a shallow, sexist, looks-driven guy. He really liked everything about her before this, but he feels like her body is a deception--he said he wants a "natural body." But he doesn't consider her to be a rapist by deception.

That simply can't be a legitimate concept, legal or not.

EricaP is clearly an unhinged tranny worried about HIS ladystick falling out. The writer is definitely NOT a bigot and, in fact, the chick who lied about being a man should be in jail.
In my 5th grade class, a black student failed to turn in his homework to a white teacher - and was given a 0, which dropped him a letter grade - after he'd been warned. The student called him a racist, the school had to investigate. The inappropriate use of the label caused all sorts of distractions, problems, and necessitated some of us to tell what we saw.

I am frankly shocked to see here all the "bigot", "homophobe", "transphobe", ~"conservatives have always controlled all societies and made this problem", ~"all liberals are trying to corrupt the hearts and minds of our children" talk. (didn't help that the official response took a shot at FoxNews).

You all are the problem... ...on both sides...

Society has no right to dictate my personal beliefs. If I want a transgendered partner - then awesome - I'm human. If I don't want that - then awesome - I'm human.

Should I label you because you don't want an interracial relationship? Should I label you because you don't want a relationship with a 600 pound partner? Should I label you because you don't want a relationship with a disfigured partner? Should I label you because you're unwilling to have a relationship with anyone / anything?

Asides from society protecting those incapable from sexual predators ( children, mentally incapacitated, etc) - these are our personal choices, beliefs, morals, etc. ...and we're not any more or less human because of our beliefs either for or against something.

Shame on you!
Gay cis-man here. We can all say what we would each prefer, but it's not up to me to tell a trans man what to do. He deserves to decide how to navigate his own identity in relationships without being patronized by cis people about it.

In my mind, the question of whether or not Marcus "should" disclose sooner should be focused on what Marcus needs and deserves. NCA, thanks to her cis privilege, is relatively safe either way.

I don't think much debate is needed right now about what cis partners of trans people deserve. I think it's more important to focus on creating a safer climate for trans people.
220Journey-- I actually kind of like the complete social shunning by the person deceived idea. The rest of your post is so absurd that I won't engage you in argument. I will point out in case NCA is reading that when she began, she was worried about feeling like a small minded bigot. You're the one telling her that she's had her trust shattered, her dreams betrayed, and her hopes crushed. Who's making Marcus powerful? Surely not her, and surely not him.

We ALL are not as trusting, as open, as comfortable, or as eager around new lovers after our first disappointments. My first love was pretty decent about our break-up. He certainly was no con-artist. He was an in over his head teenage boy. Nevertheless, I was devastated which goes with being starry eyed, not with being victimized.
From the Wiki: "Rape by deception is a crime in which the perpetrator has the victim's sexual consent and compliance, but gains it through deception or fraudulent statements or actions. The act—known in Tennessee and California as rape by fraud—is also recognized in Alabama and Michigan. The media may also refer to this type of rape as 'rape by impersonation' or 'rape by trickery'."

I'm appalled - but frankly, not surprised - that so many people are trying to minimize Marcus' vile behavior. We live in a culture where coercing, manipulating and tricking women into sex is considered "fair game" by far, far too many men.

As a rape survivor, I would FAR prefer to be assaulted by a stranger - a fight I would take to the death, if necessary, to defend myself - to being repeatedly sexually used over a period of months by a manipulative, vile LIAR whom I was coerced into trusting.

I guess we're all supposed to pretend that being conned by a so-called loved one is not dangerously corrosive to our very souls? We're supposed to put a brave face on and act like it's no big deal that we allowed a monster to put their mouth on our genitals based on months of lies, lies and more lies?

Give me a man jumping out of the bushes any day over that kind of soul-sucking manipulation and emotional abuse. At least I'd have a chance to break his nose or gouge out his eyes in self-defense. I wouldn't be lying there allowing him to rape me via deception because I actually believed all his revolting trickery.
@225 - "That simply can't be a legitimate concept, legal or not."

Manipulating a woman into a sexual relationship using trickery and lies may not seem like a big deal to you. Some women have committed suicide over that kind of betrayal.

Others have picked up a gun and killed the bastard.

I don't recommend employing manipulation and lies as "safe" sex - human beings can be dangerous when betrayed.

"This bill would instead provide that these types of rape and sodomy occur where the person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is someone known to the victim other than the accused."

@230, the law only addresses the crime of impersonating someone else, not any other kind of misrepresentation.

(At least in California.)
Also, therapy is a thing that many people find useful.
@234 - I agree. If willing, Marcus would greatly benefit from competent mental healthcare. No one should go through life as egregiously emotionally crippled as Marcus. Who knows? It might save his life.
Everywhere else on the net, Godwin's Law applies, the one that states that the longer an online argument goes on, the greater the chance one arguer will all another a nazi (and thus concede the argument). Here on Savage Love, we have our own conventions. The longer our comments columns, the greater the chance that any female who's unhappy or upset will be called a rape victim.
will CALL another a nazi

And as for telling other people to get therapy, there's another red flag. It's that idea that everything would be okay for you if the outside world just became sufficiently perfect, but you're not going to do any of the hard work. More fun to complain about others so you can maintain your special snowflake status.
@236 - If person A LIES to person B for a period of months in order to coerce person B into sex - male or female, black or white, 25 or 65 - then those LIES meet the legal definition for "rape by deception" in some jurisdictions and the ethical definition for "rape by deception" everywhere.

It's unethical. It's vile. It's reprehensible. It's indefensible.

Don't do it.

How nasty does a person have to be to think that it's no big deal to look someone in the eyes, smile, and LIE to them for weeks on end? For sex? Really?
I find this study fascinating:…

"In the study, which was published in the Journal of Basic and Applied Psychology, Feldman and his team of researchers asked two strangers to talk for 10 minutes. The conversations were recorded, and then each subject was asked to review the tape. Before looking at the footage, the subjects told researchers that they had been completely honest and accurate in their statements, but once the tape rolled, the subjects were amazed to discover all the little lies that came out in just 10 minutes. According to Feldman, 60 percent of the subjects lied at least once during the short conversation, and in that span of time, subjects told an average of 2.92 false things."

@156 "Also, I don't see Marcus "pushing" NCA to have sex now (per 149 & 152). He told her he wants to keep having sex. Isn't that what adults do, when they would prefer to keep having sex?"

A little tact and sensitivity to the context in which one requests sex goes a long way.

Imagine that I just found out my mother had been hospitalized, or my sister was about to get a divorce, or I just got rejected from the one school I really, really wanted to attend. It's some form of big news to which I need time to adjust, and it's not even necessarily my significant other's fault.

Obviously, I'm upset. Now, imagine while I'll still coming to terms with this jarring news, my significant other says, "Okay, you're upset, but we're still having sex tonight, right?"

So I say, "Gee, I don't think I feel up to it; this kind of ruined the mood." And my significant other says, "Well, I'd like to have sex with you tonight."

At that point, I'd be beyond the point of "Sleep on the couch" straight to "Pack your shit" territory.

Those trans people who claim they should be held to a lower standard than cis people--who act like their trans status somehow should give them a pass for acting like an asshead--end up setting back trans acceptance a long way, because they essentially imply that trans people are somehow incapable of acting like decent human beings.

I don't accept that. I think that trans people are capable of being just as considerate as cis people. Apparently, that makes me a bigot.
@240 Has anyone called you a bigot?
Say we've been married 20 years, and you reveal to me that secretly you like to crossdress. I draw away, saying now that I'm imagining you in women's clothes, I don't want to have sex with you any more.

Is it wrong for you to admit that you're sad about my decision, and for you to suggest that you think we could continue to have the same satisfying sex life we've had, if I will give it a chance?
(But, for the record, if I still don't want to have sex with you, that doesn't make me a bigot.)
@230 and elsewhere - I'm about 99% certain if a guy was ever completely honest with me about everything there is no way on this earth I'd ever have sex with him. Any guy. Ever.

Also, why is your ire directed only at the menfolk? Why not hate on women who insist on having sex in the dark? They aren't being forthright either. Makeup too. And bras are lies.
@238 Unless the scenario was that she was demanding sex from him, and he wasn't prepared to deliver, so he offered oral as a compromise, she accepted and so that's where they're at.
Susan, I'm having a hard time believing you are real, or even female. Working yourself up into a ridiculous froth over something so completely off topic just makes it seem like you're kidding.
Holy shit Susan you can't be serious! Comparing being assaulted to a scared trans kid who waited 3 months to disclose IS vile and offensive to transpeople and to all rape (real rape, not oportunistic I now decide is rape) survivals.
Your comments are disgusting, sorry.
@EricaP: When a cis-male misrepresents himself in an effort to get laid, he's called a "creep". It's you who doesn't see this transman as a real man.
@247 - I guess you also think that when a 17-year-old footballer spikes his first date's drink with roofies, drinks himself into near oblivion and fucks her when she's stone cold unconscious that isn't *REAL rape rape* because he's young and inexperienced and didn't realize that his behavior was illegal? I mean, goodness, she went out with him voluntarily. We can't compare what he did to REAL rape. It was just dumb teen sex. Right? Her committing suicide after was just a huge over-reaction? Right?


Give me a chance to fight any time over the slimy, emotionally destructive, under-your-defenses, con-artist-enacted rape by deception. If our culture weren't so porn-soaked perhaps more of you would understand that lack of reasonably informed consent IS legally rape in some jurisdictions and SHOULD be legally rape in all jurisdictions.

Belittling rape by deception by comparing it to wearing a push-up bra, having caps put on bad teeth or not mentioning that you're on the rebound from a lover you dumped last week? This is the kind of slime that feminists have been battling for a century: "Oh, it's not really rape because they're married. She has a duty to provide him with sex." or "Oh, it's not really rape because she was drinking in the bar alone and she passed out." or "Oh, it's not really rape because she's not a virgin and look at that short skirt." or "Sure, she has the mentality of an 1-year-old child, but look at that body! She's a grown woman, physically, and she didn't fight him. Maybe she liked it?"

Now we can add: "Oh, it's not really rape because transmen are special snowflakes with super-duper-important secrets which render them exempt from ethical human behavior."


If you lie, lie, lie, lie, lie for months to get "consent" then you don't have consent.
@248 If a cis guy hid a genital birth defect from me for several months (and I was timid enough to let him), I wouldn't call him a creep.
@247 Most thoroughly seconded.
@229: If you have dealbreakers that are serious enough that you would consider yourself raped when they came to light after the fact, then it is your responsibility to do due diligence to make sure that you never agree to sex with someone that then turns out to fit your dealbreaker description.

Being trans is not objectively a dealbreaker. Some people would happily have sex with Marcus under the circumstances described. Others would consider him incompatible, but understandable. Still others would be so squicked out as to want to consider it rape after the fact. Until we develop ESP as a viable technology, there is no reasonable way for Marcus to know which of those groups you are a member of.

Further, there is simply no way for him to know which specific attribute of his that any given person might find to be a dealbreaker. It might be that he is trans; it might be that he is a Republican; it might be that his salary is lower than his presentation implies (how dare he dress up flashy for clubbing, the villainous bastard?); it might be that he likes Nickelback. He _cannot_ know what specific personal attribute of his that someone else would consider as a rape-level dealbreaker.

It is not his responsibility to know her mind well enough to know what she would and would not consider dealbreakers; nor is it his responsibility to not have sex with her until the two of them have discussed and vetted every last possible thing she might find objectionable. It is her responsibility to know what is important enough to her; it is her responsibility to not agree to sex until she is satisfied that everything is kosher. He did not coerce her. She agreed to have sex. Apparently prematurely, but it was her choice.

He did not rape her; she consented without doing due diligence on her own dealbreakers.

@249: "I guess you also think that when a 17-year-old footballer spikes his first date's drink with roofies, drinks himself into near oblivion and fucks her when she's stone cold unconscious that isn't *REAL rape rape* because he's young and inexperienced and didn't realize that his behavior was illegal?"

Thanks for demonstrating that you are incapable of thinking your way out of a wet paper bag.

You do realize that an unconscious person cannot agree to anything, let alone agree to sex, right? But when a fully conscious adult agrees to sex, that what she has done is to agree to sex?

A roofie simply isn't an analogy to dealbreaker-after-the-fact sex. It just isn't.
Under Susan B Journey's logic, a person who buys a house without getting their own appraisals and inspections, who signs all the documents at the escrow proceedings without reading half of them, and upon moving in discovers an enormous termite infestation, has just been robbed at gunpoint.
"He _cannot_ know what specific personal attribute of his that someone else would consider as a rape-level dealbreaker. "

Pretending that you have a penis when you are, in fact, in reality, FEMALE is not a garden-variety "deal breaker" like income level not matching attire.

Really? You think that being a clever shopper for club-wear is equivalent to MONTHS of pretending to have a penis?

Marcus LIED about wanting to wait for PIV when she knew for a fact that there would never be any PIV because: no P.

Marcus manipulated a straight woman into having lesbian sex with her because she's too unethical and (probably) too mentally unbalanced to recognize that a heterosexual woman (and everyone else) has a HUMAN RIGHT to not be LIED into fucking someone that they would not want to have sex with if they knew the basic biological facts about the liar.

If we lived in a world where the trans* enthusiasts were not actively brainwashing the gullible, then no one would have to explain this fact to you.
"You do realize that an unconscious person cannot agree to anything, let alone agree to sex, right? But when a fully conscious adult agrees to sex, that what she has done is to agree to sex? "

NCA consented to sex WITH A MALE. See: heterosexual female.

She did NOT consent to sex with a female.

The heart - and the vagina - want what they want, and what NCA wants is heterosexual sex with a male.

No one gets to decide for NCA that what she wants (or doesn't want) sexually is important or real or valid.

Her vagina, her choice.
@255 - It's absurd to call someone who has taken all the benefits and weaknesses of presenting as a man, female. And I think that the rape by deception law was instated to preserve safety in the home. A stranger pretending to be your spouse in your dark bedroom is the lowest of the low. I agree that the whole spectrum of consent obtained under deception is creepy loser behavior, but I agree with the creepy guest that no legal crime has been committed. The main point IMO: Marcus should learn how to be respectful as well as noncriminal if he wants healthy relationships. Also for his safety; his next partner or her friends might not be so reasonable. Transgender peeps are more demonized than women and minority races by our society, and there's more danger from hate crimes like rape and hate beatings. And finally to avoid criminal behavior; he already said that he thinks that she's wrong, and can get into his junk/him with sex. If he acts forcefully on this dangerously disrespectful opinion... "making her get into it" is assault and internally "getting her into it" is rape.

Instead he could accept this didn't work, date online, and draw up a plan to safely come out to more potential partners, so they can be attracted to his real body not a misperception that all guys have penises. If this college is in the sticks, maybe he can transfer to a more tolerant city where it is safer to live out of the closet.

I also think that NCA should think about Marcus' physical safety and show good judgement in confidants as she deals with his secret. And advocate for a world where Marcus could feel less fear of coming out in general. Hopefully she learned more about herself and better ways to deal with her own disappointment and avoid disappointing situations. If she's feeling betrayed by the lie, NCA could have chosen to end things when her advances were first rejected. Early rejection is generally a bad sign. In the future she could try a grope on the first date. If it's deflected, the second date is off. If she doesn't like disrespect, she can walk away from it. Etc.

This is hypothetical though. To answer her concrete questions, no her feelings will not change in any good way if she has sex that she isn't into. And no she is not a bigot for considering a penis important for her sexual satisfaction, unless she's demeaning others for their preferences.

@195 - Sick. I hope he's in jail or died a mysterious painful death, got his butt kicked back to the dark ages he belongs in etc. It is also a good argument for disclosing possible dealbreakers early. Some people are nuts.

So now not having a penis and not disclosing for 3months is like fucking someone unconscious???

But its defenetly different from not having breasts and not saying it while wearing a bra during consensual sex.

Ok, your logic is just fucked up.

There has actually been a lot of scholarship into the idea of "rape by fraud". Personally, as much as I am feminist, I have to agree that the idea of "rape by fraud" is untenable and could hurt fighting rape culture and the problem of rape. The use of deception to persuade someone to have sex may be a problem, but it is a separate issue from rape IMO.
NCA has the right to be upset. Marcus doesn't have to reveal his trans status to everyone, especially considering it may not be safe to do so. But before engaging in any sexual activity, one should reveal if s/he is trans, has an STD, or anything that might affect the sexual nature of the relationship. NCA trusted Marcus enough to let him engage in oral sex and fingering; he should have trusted her enough to tell her that he did not come with the factory-installed equipment most men have.

As for TPV, she should have a slight conditional agreement for the threesome: She meets the girlfriend first and they establish mutual attraction. If it works, great. If not, oh, well.
Thanks, Susan, truth fairy, and others for giving NCA a good look at what a transphobe looks like, so she can know what she's not.

Also, I'm curious: if Marcus was a mixed-race man passing as white in a deeply racist town, and waited a similar length of time before letting his girlfriend know about his history, would that be rape too? Or is it just rape when it squicks out you personally, regardless of how she feels about it?

@257 I have no idea where he is. I didn't press charges because I was pretty sure the cops would be giving him bro-hugs for putting me in my place. The guy who killed my friend spent less than 8 years in jail.

I should add, although I now simply live out so I can't be outed, and take the appropriate--if galling in their necessity--precautions about my safety at all times, I can't see how earlier disclosure would have prevented what happened to me back then. Regardless of whether I told the girl on the fifth date, the first date, or at the moment she first asked if I wanted to go for coffee, she still would have been freaked out. Still would have talked about me with her friends, including psycho-boy.

To be fair to her, it's not like she tried to arrange for something violent to happen to me. I honestly believe she had no idea how much hate her friend had in his heart. How could she? She'd never [knowingly] seen him in the same town as a trans person before.

I should also add that transwomen face so much greater transphobia than I do, that living out of the closet is often simply not an option for them. Not if they want to stay alive.

(And, yeesh, there's the sequel to my book.)
@257 - "It's absurd to call someone who has taken all the benefits and weaknesses of presenting as a man, female."

Male, female and intersex = biological sex.

Just because Marcus believes himself to be a transman, that doesn't magically give him an actual, real male body. He can inject testosterone and hit the weight-room for six hours per day, but he'll still have female hips, female hands and no working male sexual organs.

Heterosexual women (by definition) want to have a sexual partner who has an actual, real male body (penis, testicles, male-pattern musculature, male-pattern bone structure, etc.) Two billion years of evolutionary biology result in certain unassailable biological facts and one of them is that no scientist on earth can manufacture a simulacrum of a penis and attach it to a female body in such a way that it functions exactly the same as a real male penis functions.

Why is it that everyone and their dog is trying to convince women that they are transphobic if they prefer PIV sex with a real male partner, or if lesbian, they prefer lesbian sex with real female partners?

I don't see this big campaign to convince gay men that they're horrible transphobes for not being interested in transmen - or heterosexual men that they are terrible transphobes for preferring real female bodies.

For that matter, I don't see transwomen being guilt-tripped into forming undesired sexual partnerships with transmen. Or vice versa.

Why is it always females being guilt-tripped into undesired sex with undesired sexual partners?
"Also, I'm curious: if Marcus was a mixed-race man passing as white in a deeply racist town, and waited a similar length of time before letting his girlfriend know about his history, would that be rape too? Or is it just rape when it squicks out you personally, regardless of how she feels about it?"

The law against rape by deception in Israel was inspired by a case where a Jewish woman was deceived into a long-term, sexually active engagement with a man who lied about being Jewish (he was not) and about being single (he was already married.) In a society where the Jewish faith is so important to families, lying to a Jewish woman about being Jewish was a serious enough betrayal that the legislature took action to criminalize the behavior.

To a bisexual woman, if Marcus were HONEST with her up-front, having a female body wouldn't have been a betrayal at all. Some very nice bisexual woman might have been on the hunt for a Marcus, but Marcus was too busy manipulating, deceiving, coercing, lying, etc. to NCA, an openly, avowedly heterosexual woman seeking PIV, to bother to look for a truly willing partner.
If a girl looks 18, and tells you she is 18, but in reality is 15, and you have sex with her, you'd better believe the government is going to hold you fully criminally responsible for the statutory rape that you just committed, and that you should have done due diligence before having sex with her.

If you then try to accuse her of having raped you because you never would have consented to have sex with her had you only known she was underage, the judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.

If you agree to have sex without having done your due diligence, you are entirely responsible for your actions and their consequences. The same principle that holds you responsible when the person is lying about their age holds equally true when the person is lying about their biological sex. If you didn't bother to make sure before going ahead, you chose to go ahead. It was your choice. They didn't do it TO you, you affirmatively chose to do it WITH them. That's consent.
@Susan: You asked Why is it that everyone and their dog is trying to convince women that they are transphobic if they prefer PIV sex with a real male partner? Actually, if you look at this thread, there's only one person whose trying to suggest that a woman who doesn't want to have sex with a transman is transphobic (to be precise, she suggested that such a woman would be homophobic).

Furthermonre "Everyone" is not trying to guilt-trip women into having sex with transmen. Marcus alone is trying to guilt trip NCA into having sex with him.

The fact is that if you look at the comment thread, many people put Marcus firmly in the "creep" category. We just don't think "creep" = "rapist."

You have a right to as much outrage as you want about whatever you want, but stop trying to tell us what our positions are.
@267: Dang it! Who's, not whose.
And I'm straight, and not interested in dating transmen, but I believe that you are misspeaking and misunderstanding what it means to be bisexual and transsexual when you say: To a bisexual woman, if Marcus were HONEST with her up-front, having a female body wouldn't have been a betrayal at all. Some very nice bisexual woman might have been on the hunt for a Marcus, but Marcus was too busy manipulating, deceiving, coercing, lying, etc. to NCA, an openly, avowedly heterosexual woman seeking PIV, to bother to look for a truly willing partner.

Perhaps some bisexual women (or men) would be interested in dating Marcus, but so might some straight women and some gay men. Because, see, Marcus is a person, not a category.
nocutename @267, assuming you're referring to me, you're misrepresenting my position.

I don't think it's transphobic or homophobic not to want sex with a transperson in the future.

Just like it's not homophobic not to want to have sex with a person of one's same gender.

What I say is homophobic and transphobic is loving the sex when you have it, and then retroactively deciding that it was terrible because of what you learned about their body.

Just as in strangeway's example @261, it's NOT racist to be unattracted to a mixed-race person, but it IS racist to be totally attracted to that mixed-race person, have an awesome sexual experience with him, and then be upset once you find out about his mixed-race background. (It's still fine not to want sex going forward, of course. One wants what one wants.)
Also, I revised my position (see @79), because JunieGirl explained how much it hurts to have to walk away from a long-term relationship who hid a condition that they probably guessed was a deal-breaker. So I do criticize Marcus for causing her that pain, and I feel compassion for both people.

I will also add that people are entitled to feel whatever feelings they feel. But if one feels anger after great sex with someone who turns out to be a transperson or a mixed-race person, one shouldn't lash out in anger.
edit @272 "to have to walk away from a long-term relationship with someone"
re: 266 -- Lest people mistakenly start thinking that I believe that the perpetrator of the lies bears no responsibility in this, my opinion is that the liar has committed fraud. Not rape, fraud.

Handing your money over to a smooth-talking con men is to be a victim of fraud, not robbery. I think we can all agree on this. By the same principle, electing to have sex with a smooth-talking player is fraud, not rape.

If the deceived person wanted to mount a fraud case against the deceiver, I am reasonably behind that, with the following caveats:
a) what are the legally definable damages when one has enthusiastic sex that one later regrets? What could constitute appropriate reparations? You enjoyed it at the time. what have you credibly lost?
b) if failure to have a penis is fraud, a thick padded bra most certainly qualifies as well, as does heavy makeup, a girdle, contact lenses, et cetera. Who are you to tell me what I may or may not consider a damnable dealbreaker?
EricaP: Who's said NCA should lash out at Marcus? NCA herself doesn't even say she feels anger. Although I said @4 that if this were me, I'd be "pissed," I didn't say I'd lash out in anger, and I wasn't advocating that NCA do that. I don't think anyone here has.

I think you need to go back and actually READ the original post (and perhaps everyone else's), because you're doing a lot of misreading and then (mis)interpreting.

Here's what NCA said: He has performed oral sex on me and fingered me. That's it. I don't know about you, but I've had plenty of unremarkable sex I didn't "love." She doesn't mention how she feels about the sex itself now that she knows Marcus misrepresented himself. Rather, she talks about going forward and isn't sure she can do that: Truthfully, had I known, I don’t think I would have had sex with Marcus. Before I found out he was trans, I was deeply attracted to him and was falling for him. Now, I no longer feel either of those things and do not know if I can continue dating him.

Here's what you said @271: What I say is homophobic and transphobic is loving the sex when you have it, and then retroactively deciding that it was terrible because of what you learned about their body. . . . have an awesome sexual experience with him Also, @272: if one feels anger after great sex with someone who turns out to be a transperson . . .

You were the first person to introduce the idea of "outrage." In fact, you insist on magnifying every statement or reaction, both NCA's and all posters'. If someone says she'd be pissed at being deceived and manipulated, you upgrade that to being outraged. If someone says Marcus behaved badly, suddenly you read that as people telling NCA that she should lash out at him out of a sense of outrage. If she says she had sex, you turn that sex into "awesome" sex and then you tell us she's turned it into "terrible" sex, when she didn't qualify the sex in any way at all. You accuse people of being transphobic, homophobic, and bigots if they think that they would react similarly to NCA; you later presume to know what was going on in Marcus' head (particularly when you offered your reason as to why he declined PIV--why it was such a big deal to him).

If you were one of my students and wrote a paper with this kind of analysis of the original letter, I'd give you a C- and tell you that the text could not support your claims.
"If you agree to have sex without having done your due diligence, you are entirely responsible for your actions and their consequences."

Really? If I tell you that I'm HIV-free and show you a FAKE certificate of my HIV-free status that I cooked up by scanning a real certificate from a lab and changing the results from positive to negative, the onus is on YOU? For trusting and believing a new girlfriend who has been looking you in they eye and avowing like/love for months?

What a weird, upside world: where the conscious, repetitive, intentional liar is "just young and inexperienced" but the equally young and inexperienced target of the liar is at fault for not doing sufficient "due diligence". How, exactly? By demanding to be present for a cheek swab and mailing off a DNA test from each lover in advance to be sure that they are XY? To demand in advance to see the penis or be given a certificate of penile existence from the urologist of her choice?

Really? Is that the world that trans* folks want to live in? Where we're all asking for proof of the presence of nature-issued genitals of the preferred sort? I seriously doubt it.

How about being honest with people *before* you have sex with them?
@ 267 - Sorry, but this thread is not my first rodeo. I've seen several threads which boil down to guilt-tripping heterosexual women into having sex with transmen and dozens of threads about guilt-tripping lesbians into having sex with transwomen. I did not intend to imply that this was the only thread containing those kinds of views. It's a thing. Google: "the cotton ceiling controversy".
Could someone refer Ms Journey to the letter of some months ago from the straight cis man who wanted to be a trans ally but didn't think he could date a trans woman (if memory serves, he met with a frosty reception)?

Ms Cute - Doesn't the guest expert's opening salvo appear to be an attempt to cajole LW into giving it a try?

I've asked myself multiple times why, when LW is looking for permission to leave without guilt, Mr Savage chose to bring in a trans activist for the Insider Perspective instead of a partner of someone trans. The best I can conjure in my current state is that Mr Savage's cosmic vibrations told him that LW is looking for permission to stay.
"What I say is homophobic and transphobic is loving the sex when you have it, and then retroactively deciding that it was terrible because of what you learned about their body."

What if you learn that the person is actually your full sibling, separated by the foster care system at birth, and they knew this but kept it from you? What if you learn that the person is actually full to the rafters with HPV and lied to you about their status? What if the person claims that they love you, but they've actually wired their room for video and sound, and are broadcasting your sexual relationship to paying customers via the internet?

Does the fact that a person "loved the sex" before they realized that they were being deceived and betrayed excuse ALL circumstances? Or only the ones which you carefully select according to your biases?
@276: "Really? If I tell you that I'm HIV-free and show you a FAKE certificate of my HIV-free status that I cooked up by scanning a real certificate from a lab and changing the results from positive to negative, the onus is on YOU? For trusting and believing a new girlfriend who has been looking you in they eye and avowing like/love for months?"

I already covered that. See #274.

I would call that fraud. And I would call the HIV thing attempted murder by deliberately infecting someone with a potentially fatal disease. Both of these I regard as criminally actionable. The fake certificate I would classify as malice aforethought or even a special enhancement circumstance.

But I would not call it rape.
I know it's a bit off-topic, but can we talk for a second about Susan B Journey's suggestion that somebody deceiving you to get in your pants is almost worse than stranger rape, because in stranger rape you can fight to the death?

That seems to imply that people who have gone through a violent rape are *weak* because they survived it. That if they'd been stronger, they would have kept fighting until the attacker was forced to kill them. And if they'd *really* been strong, they could have hurt the attacker enough to make it stop.

Which seems pretty victim-blamey for somebody trying to say that being lied to makes you a rape victim.
Mr. Ven: You're right about the guest expert. And s/he(?) probably set the tone for all that followed.
@281: Yes, I've been bothered by that, too. But I'm already boring everybody by posting too much, and that particular topic cuts too close to home for me, so I've decided to limit the battles I want to fight. I wish someone would take it on, though.
@275, 'You accuse people of being transphobic, homophobic, and bigots if they think that they would react similarly to NCA"

Quite the opposite, actually.
Nocutename, I apologize for saying early on that you were wrong to say you would be pissed. As I've conceded repeatedly since @79, I can see now why someone could justifiably be angry at Marcus, although NCA is not herself angry at him.
@279 "What if you learn that the person is actually your full sibling?"
Then any retrospective outrage would suggest I find incest very upsetting.

"What if you learn that the person is actually full to the rafters with HPV?"
Then any r.o. would suggest I find the possibility of getting HPV very upsetting.

"What if the person [is] broadcasting your sexual relationship?"
Then any r.o. would suggest I find that prospect very upsetting.

Similarly, any retrospective outrage at the idea that I enjoyed sex with someone I now see as a woman suggests that I find that idea very upsetting (not just unappealing) .

@ 286

Heterosexual people by definition want to have sex with partners of the OPPOSITE sex and homosexual people by definition want to have sex with partners of the SAME sex.

Sex. Not gender. Sex.

So yes, being coerced by a sneaky liar into having sex with them - a person of the same sex - would naturally be VERY upsetting to a heterosexual person who thought they were having sex with a person of the opposite sex.

Is this the part where we have to invite the Muppets to start singing, "One of these things is not like the others"?

Or is being able to perceive the differences between people's bodies "transphobic" now?
@ 274 - "...if failure to have a penis is fraud, a thick padded bra most certainly qualifies as well, as does heavy makeup, a girdle, contact lenses, et cetera…"

I can't even imagine what kind of social milieu a person would inhabit where lying to an avowedly heterosexual female lover about being male and having a penis would be ethically equivalent to wearing contact lenses.
Hey folks, We're being trolled. Engage if you find it fun. Withdraw if you're getting frustrated. I find it a little interesting because, with everything in writing, you can go back and identify the tactics.

The major one is to take every reasonable argument and misrepresent or exaggerate it leaving the arguer sputtering with a variation of "that's not what I said."

246-gnot-- Unfortunately, she probably is real. She probably does believe that all men are vile and that there's no difference between unfortunate things that people shouldn't do and rape. Unfortunately, it leads to the need for law makers to start using phrases like "real rape," something I was appalled to hear originally but now realize makes an important distinction. (Where the lines are drawn when making that distinction is still important and controversial.)

I've run into this before, more often on the net but also in real life, even lost a friend over it, and I've never had any success in convincing them otherwise.

Here's the funny thing about people like this. If you stay with them long enough, you realize that they have something against all men. For example, once long ago, a woman on a discussion group made the case that any sex that a woman had uneasy feelings about afterwards was rape. She didn't put it in those terms, but that's what it came down to. Everyone tried to tell her otherwise. The discussion died down, and some time later, people started talking about public restrooms and what the etiquette was on using the opposite sex restroom when a handicapped person or child needed assistance or in moments of emergency. She actually seemed to believe that men's rooms were all filthier than ladies' rooms because men have such filthy habits. When people who had worked at cleaning both pointed out that public restrooms tend to get dirty in general, she didn't believe it. She was convinced that men were filthy. When it was pointed out that many of us live with men whom we do not consider filthy and whom we consider to be quite nice in a lot of ways, she didn't seem convinced then either.

Bottom line is that when you dig deep into the psychology of these women, you find that they don't just have a bone to pick with rapists, and they don't just think that being deceptive is rape, you discover after a time that they think that there's something deeply and horribly wrong with men and with sex in all its forms. They'd be hardpressed to come up with an example of a sexual relationship they didn't think was rape.

The other unifying trait I find with them is the one that finds solutions to all problems in other people changing their behavior, never with the complainer changing hers. So when therapy is suggested, they think it would be great if everyone else went into therapy so as to make them happy. If it's suggested that a victim (oh, uh, rape survivor) might grow to become less vulnerable, they can't hear that. It's all a matter of men never saying anything that could be misinterpreted.
strangeway? For "transphobia" to exist "trans" would have to exist. It doesn't!! "Trans" is a creation of the medical industry and the lgbtwtf orgs. Sad losers like yourself who are perverted enough to think you change your sex follow along and endorse outdated notions of gender/sex roles. "Well I like man things so I'm a man". " I like pink so I'm really a woman". You're mentally ill perverted creeps on the loose and at best completely confuse children.

Many trannies seem to lack basic morality. This thread is a testimate to that.
@286: I've been away from this for a while, which actually helps a little.

People don't like being lied to. If the person you've been dating for three months turns out to have been lying to you that whole time, about something very important, you have a right to be offended. Outraged, even--though "outrage" here is a phrase you keep using to deliberately mischaracterize what Nocutename said, and now that it's been pointed out to you, someone participating honestly here would stop doing so.

And she definitely has the right to not have sex with someone she doesn't want to have sex with. No means no. It does not mean "no, unless I have to have sex with you to avoid being called a bigot." It means no.

It's not about the trans status. It's about the lying. Her feelings regarding transmen aren't actually relevant--it's her feelings about huge fucking liars that matter.
@290 (truth fairy): As far as I can see, the trans people who have contributed to this thread aren't calling people names, like "sad losers," "mentally ill perverted creeps on the loose," and the deliberately insulting pejorative, "trannies."

They're not the ones "lack[ing] basic morality."

Have you ever thought of trying to keep your discourse civil? I mean making whatever point you want, but doing it without name-calling and slinging insults?
Now I need to know witch of the sibilings that had sex without none of them knowing in the example of Susan is the rapist.
@291 see 285. At 286 I was addressing SBJ, about a series of hypotheticals.
You seem to be eliding the lying from each situation, though. Homophobia, or whatever, isn't the only reason you could be upset about having a woman lie to you about her gender in order to get you to have sex with her. The lying itself is enough.

If I offer to sell you a dog, and you agree, and then you find out that I had disguised a parrot as a small dog, and you're angry at me for tricking you into buying a parrot when you wanted a puppy, it's dishonest to say that the only conceivable reason you're angry is because you secretly hate parrots.
@295 SBJ didn't compare the misrepresentation to a puppy/parrot switch. She compared it to incest.

I've conceded repeatedly (five times at least since @79) that someone can be legitimately angry at a man who establishes a relationship by suggesting he has has working equipment when he doesn't (as in JunieGirl's story, or NCA's situation).

Anyone who keeps saying that I am eliding the lying is demonstrating poor reading skills.
@ 289 - If your passive-aggressive diatribe was, in fact, directed at me:

First of all, trolled? Really? Having a point of view different than your own is "trolling"? You might want to do a little research before you go there.

I have pointed out that "rape by deception" is illegal in several jurisdictions. (Did this strike a nerve?) It isn't something invented by a man-hating feminist, nor by me. It's a legal concept that has been encoded into law in places as diverse as California and Israel (I reside in neither location) to address egregiously manipulative, predatory sexual behavior involving coercing people (male or female) into sex that they wouldn't have agree to if not for the vile dishonesty of the lying sack of dirt who did the manipulation.

Where you get "hates all men, thinks all men are filthy, thinks all male-female, PIV sex is rape" is beyond me.

Do I really have to trot out my decades of great sex with HONEST men now to prove you wrong? Seriously? What is so difficult to understand: lying to get sex is unethical and sometimes illegal. Being honest with lovers is ethical. It's the right thing to do when being intimate with another human being's body. Sheesh.
@296: It's true that in 79 you briefly seem to acknowledge what's going on. But in 89 and 137 you seem to be jumping back into saying that deceiving someone into having sex with you suddenly becomes acceptable if you're trans. Perhaps my reading skills are sub-par, but I don't seem to be the only one making this mistake, if it a mistake. Perhaps you're expressing yourself unusually poorly?

In 176 you seem to be expressing the opinion that if I get shot, I'm entitled to stab some third party, and that if you won't let me stab you then you're being insufficiently compassionate. And maybe a bigot.

In 188 you say: We just disagree about whether Marcus is himself more worthy of pity or scorn.

My take on this, and I assume that of the rest of us, is that pity and scorn are not zero-sum. People in pitiable circumstances don't get a free pass on scorn-worthy behavior. Especially people who choose to engage in very scorn-worthy behavior, and who seem to be trying very hard to milk their circumstances to get a free pass for it.

@ 296 - Yes, I did compare it to incest.

With the appalling number of transgender and transsexual women murdered after deceiving a male into sex with what they thought was a biological female, you'd think that this would be obvious: some people get VERY upset, even murderously violent, when they are deceived about the biological sex of their partner.

From the Wiki about the murder of Gwen Araujo:

"Gwen being transgender was not a provocative act. He's who he was. However, I would not further ignore the reality that Gwen made some decisions in his relation with these defendants that were impossible to defend. I don't think most jurors are going to think it's OK to engage someone in sexual activity knowing they assume you have one sexual anatomy when you don't."

-- Alameda County Assistant District Attorney Chris Lamiero

Given the mortal danger involved, I think it would be wise for all trans* people to adopt a policy of being honest in advance with all lovers - and waiting to have sex until they feel that they *can* safely be honest with a potential lover.
@298, I don't understand your violent analogy.

Let me restate my current point:

1) I see it as no worse to keep back one's trans situation than to keep back one's severe ED, as JunieGirl's husband did. Do you agree?

2) Further, my personal experience hearing terrible stories of what has happened to trans people when their families find out makes me very sympathetic to them, even when they make bad choices. I gather other posters don't see the world that way.

@300: If something bad happens to me, do I get a free pass to do bad things to other people?
You seem to be arguing that yes, I do. I don't agree. But since you claim to believe this, I was looking for more detail. If I've been hit by a car, does this entitle me to rob somebody? How much misfortune on my part justifies how much misconduct on my part?

It seems like the Marcuses of the world would need to know. Is it one-to-one, like if I get raped I get to rape somebody? Is it 10-1, like if I get both hands eaten by an alligator, I get one free pass to have a dog bite off someone's finger? If I'm trans, do I get a few passes to deceive somebody into a sexual relationship? If so, how many passes?

1. They're on the same spectrum, but the former is of greater magnitude.

2. Yes; being trans does not, for the rest of us, transmute his asshole behavior into non-asshole behavior. If he robbed a bank, we'd still think he was a bank robber--a transman who robs a bank is still a bank robber, and a transman who decides to be an asshole is still an asshole.
@301, why is the former of greater magnitude?

@301 Re "free pass" -- could you stop bringing violent analogies in?

When do you think a mixed-race person is ethically obliged (as opposed to well-advised) to reveal their racial status to someone with whom they are becoming intimate? And if they fail in their ethical obligation, what consequences do you think they should face? (beyond the inevitable disappointment of the person whom they didn't trust enough to tell earlier?)

We're not arguing about "free passes" (I think), we're arguing about what the reasonable consequences ought to be after someone screws up their ethical obligation. I think those consequences should be low, and mainly limited to the upset person cutting off relations. What consequences do you think the mixed-race or trans person should face?
edit @303, for the mixed-race scenario, let's presume we're discussing a society as biased against mixed-race people as our society is biased against transpeople.
@303: That doesn't work as an analogy at all, because sex doesn't involve race. It does, however, involve sex organs.

I think the consequences for that particular misdeed should not include having anyone shame your victim, or accuse your victim of bigotry. To try to clear up the confusion you seem to be experiencing: When you feel the urge to pressure someone to have sex with someone they don't want to fuck, you should not do it.

No means no. It also means you don't get to punish anyone for saying no. Even when the person to whom they're saying "no" is someone you find personally sympathetic. Your sympathy does not entitle them to a sexual relationship with anyone else.

Re "free pass" -- could you stop bringing violent analogies in?

Sure. In return, could you stop pretending not to know things that you do, in fact, know?

I'd also like you to stop trying to apply negative labels to people who don't want to have sex with someone else. What do you want in exchange?
GrizWatch update, 04/07/2014: I am now appearing to have more frequent UTIs and erratic bleeding. I have gone to my local Rite-Aid for the necessary meds and supplies, and while I do feel better right this minute now, I have had to ask my gynecologist two questions about my combined new post-op symptoms (simultaneous UTI+ vaginal bleeding with some clotting):
1) Is this a normal after-effect, and 2) Will I EVER have a normal internal reproductive system?? Because at this point, I'm about ready to take out my "canned ham from a dizzying height" and fucking chuck it.
Honestly, other than making the terrible biological mistakes of taking Ortho Novum-777 back when I was sexually active and in the U.S. Navy, and also trying HORRIBLE products like Encare Oval, I have no fucking clue what I ever did wrong over the past 37 years.
Gentlemen and ladies with blessedly normal cycles lasting only a few days, with little flow or menstrual cycle-related body pains, count yourselves lucky. I wish I was among you.
@305 "I think the consequences for that particular misdeed should not include having anyone shame your victim, or accuse your victim of bigotry."

No one has accused NCA of bigotry or shamed her. What consequences do you think Marcus himself should face, besides NCA's understandable disappointment and anger?

And I'll repeat my question from 302: "why is the former of greater magnitude?" Is that one of those things you think I already know?

Griz@306, so sorry to hear your problems are not resolving themselves easily.
@307: No one has accused NCA of bigotry or shamed her.

Again, please stop doing this. You started accusing her--and most of the rest of us--of homophobia, transphobia, and the rest very early in this thread, and never really stopped.

It's okay to say you've changed your mind, but when you say it never happened, you're lying about what you've said earlier in the thread. Please, please stop doing that. It's not only dishonest, it's incredibly stupid.

In case you have suddenly somehow forgotten that both of the things you say have not happened did, in fact, happen, please go reread posts 8, 9, 16, 21, and 50. As all but the last were written by you, I find it highly unlikely that you sincerely believe that no one here has written such a thing.

Given that you've totally abandoned any pretense of participating in good faith, to the extent that you're now blatantly lying about the words on the page we're both looking at right now, I think I'm going to abandon this.

Have a good day, and try to rethink your position regarding when it's not okay to decline sex you don't want. It is always okay.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.