and remember to be decent to everyoneall of the time.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
@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.
"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.
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.
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.
Now, accusing Marcus of rape just shows how mean and bigot some people are. its just disgusting
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 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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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."
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.
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?
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.
Your comments are disgusting, sorry.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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 . . .
NCA DIDN'T SAY SHE LOVED THE SEX; SHE DIDN'T SAY SHE HAS RETROACTIVELY DECIDED IT WAS TERRIBLE. SHE JUST SAYS SHE IS NO LONGER ROMANTICALLY ATTRACTED TO MARCUS AND WOULDN'T HAVE HAD SEX WITH HIM HAD SHE KNOWN BEFOREHAND THAT HE WASN'T A BIOLOGICAL MALE.
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.
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?
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 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?
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.
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.
Quite the opposite, actually.
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) .
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?
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.
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.
Many trannies seem to lack basic morality. This thread is a testimate to that.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.