Comments on: The Spanking That Dares Not Speak Its Name

By: Monty

Monty — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:46:58 +0000

The strength of English as a language is its mutability and lack of strict definition. There is no official right or wrong. American English is quite different from British English, which in turn is even slightly different to OED English (Used by the UN I think, amongst others).

There have been references here to correct usage of the language. There is none. If you are having a debate on the scientific, cultural or linguistic definitions of ‘woman’ then these all have different answers and should NOT be lumped in together.

A man remains genetically male no matter who it offends (scientific), even though we are bound to change our definitions by just equality laws (cultural), whilst a photographer is free to describe his work in what ever way he wishes that the reader can understand (linguistic).

By: bevvo

bevvo — Thu, 14 May 2009 09:13:24 +0000

Wow. You don’t expect conversation of this caliber in a porn blog. It’s quite amusing.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 01:17:58 +0000

Wow!

I have to say, I agree with you 100% Bacchus.

If you have a dick. You’re a guy. It’s a pretty simple concept. I don’t think there should only be the antiquated male/female roles, but gender is really not a continnuum. How you feel about it, might be, but the gender itself isn’t.

If you want to feel feminine and frilly, that’s fine. But that doesn’t make you a woman. If you want to self-identify as being female, that’s fine too. But it doesn’t make you female.

Dress how you want. Talk how you want. Have whatever emotions you want. But, please don’t change the English language just to suit your own needs.

By: Flame

Flame — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:17:43 +0000

I guess I need to clarify. I’m not disagreeing with you. Quite the opposite. What I’m attempting to convey (badly I guess) is that a person with a penis is not a female. I am not speaking of someone who is biologically/chromosomally female and just happened to have been born with a larger than usual clitoris,or even a case of someone who truly is born ambiguously gendered. I’m speaking of those who were originally biological males. So Chicks with Dicks is a misnomer, perpetuated by money grubbers, and people who feel some sort of guilt for finding trans-gendered people sexually attractive. I think Boys with Boobs is a more accurate term (if one must be coined) to describe pre-op M to F transsexuals. Plainly put, I don’t consider someone a girl or a boy until they’ve made the final step. If a person is still sporting the genitals of their prior biological gender incarnation, then they are a lovely blend which is fine in and of itself, but which is not female (or male), no matter what they may want to call themselves.

Did I clear my comment up, or just make it muddier?
::sighs, considers getting more sleep, or taking a remedial English course.

By: Bacchus

Bacchus — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:58:21 +0000

I get the idea, but I stand by what I’ve written.

By: Flame

Flame — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:13:29 +0000

Bacchus, FWIW, I agree with you, and have had this very conversation many times with others. Let’s call a spade a spade. Or is that not PC?

In my experience, calling transgendered people “Chicks with Dicks” is the *real* insult, meant to cater to people who are so uncomfortable with their own sexuality that they cannot admit to themselves that they might not be 100 percent heterosexual, thereby alleviating any social guilt they might feel over finding a person of the same gender attractive, as in “Hey, I’m not really gay! She has boobs!”

Which brings up another point that dovetails nicely with the comments of some of the transgendered posters above: I find it mighty insulting that the porn producers in question define people strictly by their secondary sexual characteristics. Does having breasts and long hair make a person female? Does this mean that if I have a mastectomy and short hair I’m not a woman?

Much like race, gender is a social construct. The reality is, these porn producers are pandering to the “taboo” aspect that is exacerbated by labeling folks. They are doing nothing to promote understanding of the trans community, and are in effect only perpetuating misunderstanding and discontent, all in the name of the almighty dollar.

But what else is new?

Gods forbid we should foster an accepting tolerant mindset that encourages people to explore and embrace their sexuality…why then it wouldn’t be “forbidden” and therefore tittilating and money generating! The producers probably wouldn’t make nearly as much money selling trans related porn to people with a healthy view of their own sexuality as they do marketing it to Homophobe Harry who bashes trans and gay people publicly, but privately loves nothing better than to slap his bishop around while watching some trans related erotica. Forbidden fruit is always the sweetest.

Argh. I’m rambling. You get the idea.

By: Holly H

Holly H — Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:38:00 +0000

A real wordsmith understands that his words describe an ambiguous, uncertain, and mutable world; that words and definitions can try to pin down meanings and realities, but often fall short, just as our understanding of many subjects outside of our experience often falls short.

You’re really falling short on this one, and it’s disappointing for people who have enjoyed your writing about sex so far.