Question for the heterosexual men of AF

[Losty]

You’re not getting it Hammy. It doesn’t matter that it’s the same vagina. What matters is that someone’s feelings have changed about it due to new information that they didn’t have before. It doesn’t make them transphobic. It makes them not attracted to trans women. There’s nothing wrong with that.

They -are- attracted to a transwoman..in the OP.

Or in some cases they -were- attracted to a transwoman when they didn’t know she was trans. But because they’re not attracted to trans women, when they find out she’s trans they lose attraction. It’s not necessarily transphobic. There’s a lot that goes into attraction aside from physical appearance. Anyway, this discussion feels like a lot of repeating the same stuff over and over so I’m out.

[Whateverist]

Ugh, yeah I can't watch that stuff. Where in the world did you watch an autopsy? Youtube?

Careful.  God will know.  

[paulpablo]

I disagree that a trans male to female person never had a penis.  Just for the simple fact that they did

WOW! What an incredible argument /sarcasm

The point is "they", their identity, is not the same thing as their body. The self is the personality, and their personality didn't match a penis, nor did their personality "have a penis", the body that inhabited their personality did. And there was a sense in which it wasn't a body that was truly theirs, it was merely a body they inhabited. They felt like a stranger in that body, and that is the dysphoria that transpeople experience that you do not seem to grasp.

If you're talking about raw primitive sexual attraction in my opinion it's safe to say there's some subconscious level of attraction between any straight people who have ovaries and sperm, and even beyond that sexual attraction towards any representation that there's a possibility of the ovaries and sperm being around.  
A straight man will have some level of attraction towards a rubber vagina, a cartoon drawing of one, pixels on a screen, whatever it is. Even if the sexual attraction is as low level as eyes being drawn to look at it due to primitive sexual interest.   

Again though, we're not talking about rubber vaginas or poor imitations of vaginas. We're talking about artifical vaginas so convincing and attached to people so convincing that you literally wouldn't know the difference if you were ever told that there was one.

You could be more attracted to them than any other ciswoman, simply because they look like a very attractive ciswoman and you're unable to tell the difference. The fact you'd start thinking about what they were rather than what they are (or as I said, it wasn't really them that was that way before, it was the body they felt like a stranger inside).... and what has that got to do with anything? If you continue to look at the transwoman and find their personality and body to be just as attractive as before you knew they were trans.... the fact that you can't stop thinking about penises and the penis that is no longer relevant.... says nothing about your repulsion to them and everything about your repulsion to your obsession with penises and thinking about a specific penis you've never seen outside your own imagination, and has absolutely nothing to do with the person you're still attracted to, but pretending not to be, because you can't stop thinking about penises. If a repulsion to penis gets away with your being mindful of a person you're still attracted to for all the exact same reasons as before, then that's not the same thing as actually no longer being attracted to them.

In relation to the first bolded part, the point I'm trying to make is that there is at least primitive sexual attraction to any sort of representation of what might be a signs of a healthy fertile female but that it isn't an indication of sexual attraction as a whole as it's commonly talked about.  Because people aren't entirely governed in terms of sexual preferences by basic sexual instinct and they're also nullified by conscious ideas and thoughts and they can affect fairly primitive feelings of disgust.  

For an example, straight males are attracted at a primitive level to any sort of representation of what might be signs of a healthy fertile female, at a less basic level than that there's very commonly at least some level of disgust at having sex with close family members no matter how sexually attractive they are.
I don't have sisters, but I imagine it's possible for a man to be checking out a girl from behind and feel sexual attraction then feel repulsion when he realizes it's his sister.  
It's not that he's pretending to not be attracted, but also I'd say it's not that there isn't a level of primitive sexual urge still there, it's just been nullified by conscious disgust at a more intricate level of the brain. This is just a guess since I imagine sexual attraction is a way more earlier occurrence in evolution than disgust of incest in any animals brain.

And I don't believe that one part of the brain or one instinct indefinitely governs the other, I think sexual urges can nullify disgust and vice versa, and it's fluctuating based on levels of sexual urges (horniness) and varying levels and ideas of disgust.

The second part bolded, it was them that was that way before.

The third part bolded,  I have a sexual repulsion to the idea of a vagina cavity being made out of a surgically altered penis.  That's not an obsession, it's actually not even a deep thought, it's a basic sexual repulsion to the idea.


I don't believe it's equal to a phobia, or can be compared to racism.

[Whateverist]

You can lose attraction for a vagina you originally thought looked good after finding out it's a fake vag made out of penis tissue. Not because of how it looks, but because of the idea of it. Sexual attraction is a complex thing, and is completely involuntary.

I don't know.  It would probably be the only way Vorlon would go near one.

---

Because the mind is complex like that. The idea of something can turn you off despite anything else.

Said the theist to the atheist.  Now I need a drink.

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be a mistake to think that our deep seated sexual revulsions can't be informed by something like transphobia.  Pointing out that revulsion does not clear the space, as it were.  

That;s the point of modifying and asking..were it not being constantly equated to things like shit or vomit or what have you (and honestly..lol, cmon folks..this is feeding phobic suspsicions more than allaying them) and gaping disgusting "penis flesh" chasms....etc..... would it still be an issue?  Because, in that case...the likelihood that ones opinion or revulsion -is- being informed by something transphobic starts to climb...fast.  

Not that anyone could do anything about it, were that the case.  They would still feel the way they feel.

[Shell B]

I don’t recall comparing it to shit or vomit. That was the food analogy.

Cl, I can’t remember what the name was. I’ll try to find it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just a summary of the many comparisons in thread.

[energizer bunny]

Deal breaker as my preference is real women with real parts.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and if it were possible for a trans woman to have "real parts" then, one would assume, np......yes?

[energizer bunny]

how would that be possible?