In the interest of Science (tm), I will answer some queries and try to dispense of what little knowledge I have of the issues surrounding such material.

The first inquiry regards a list of links for my preferred hentais. I am having a bit of trouble parsing the inquiry, so I will answer it in two parts.

First I shall describe some of my preferred genres or attributes in general and secondly I will describe some of my favourite instances of such material.

Throughout, I shall intersperse social commentary. This is all off of the top of my head and may or may not be accurate.

---

Preferred Genres or Attributes (or Focus)

(1) Traps. This is currently my favourite focus and likely the one most controversial to me personally. The basic definition of the word "trap" is a boy who looks like a girl. The context from which it originates is some guy A looking to have a good time with a presumed-to-be-a-girl person B, when really the gender (although particularly, the physical traits of person B) reflects that of a typical male and guy A is "trapped" when it is revealed to him that person is, in fact, a male.

The term is rooted in transphobia, and particularly, transmisogyny, although I suppose it has applications to crossdressers who identify within the gender binary. Regardless, the context from which it originates is harmful. It's my guilty pleasure, essentially.

(2) Tentacles.

No comment.

This is all that I really care to say at the moment.

---

Some Favourite Instances

(1) Make A Matchless ♂ Succubus Masochistic. One of my top favourites. The character design of the succubus is very cute and has a mischievous quality to it. Problems with this piece are potential racism by objectifying darker skin colour, rape, and potentially pedophillic subtext. The last problem is a problem I personally find difficult to nail down as given that the media does not reflect any real-life subjects, I don't think there can be a reasonable case to be made that there is something wrong with it or even if such a subtext exists.

(2) Angstory. Potentially generic yaoi. I really like this one because of the style and because of the story. Seeing the bully transform into a deeper, more likeable character while interacting with the main character is somehow heart-warming. That and him seeming to explore his sexuality is also heartening in a promising way.

No, gay-recruitment is not a thing. It's a joke to scare homophobic people.

(3) Boku ga Kanojo. Interesting exploration of a relationship between a hinted-to-be-transfem character and a presumably straight and cis male. A question can be posed: If a transgirl who has used no medication wrt hormone replacement therapy and another sorts of gender dysphoria-related surgeries has sex with a cis guy, are they in a gay relationship or not? (Western queer theory provides the answer "no.")

(4) That Damn Kid Won’t Stop Crossdressing 7: Imperial Grey Zone (Inazuma Eleven). Uhhh. Not sure what to say really, besides two guys exploring sexuality at a relatively young age. This makes me curious as to the state of sexual education in elementary/middle/high schools these days. Do they adequately address all forms of sex and include appropriate consideration for other sexualities?

Likely not, but I heard good developments at least in Ontario.

(5) Oshitai Moushiagemasu, Enma-sama. (Momotarou Densetsu). Not sure why I included this. It was hot. Demons and gender-bending? Sick-nasty.

I wouldn't say that. I mean if a guy is looking to score with a woman, the disappointment would naturally be there if the woman wasn't a woman. A "Trap" would probably be the best term for it. If you take home a box of orange juice, that says it's orange juice, has a picture of an orange, and lists orange juice in the ingredients, only to open the box and find it's lime juice, wouldn't you be even the slightest bit upset? It doesn't mean I despise all limes (as per the definition), it just means I wasn't expecting, nor did I want lime juice at the time.

The forum doesn't seem to parse size tags, so this is just a side note.
This has actually happened to me. Damnit Wal Mart.

On a side note, Make A Matchless ♂ Succubus Masochistic, was fairly enjoyable.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Aug 31 2014, 10:54 pm by Generalpie.

So wait... What would you call a guy who wants to go out as a girl on some days (Not all the time) and have fun... Sticking to chicks when he's himself, and being asexual as a girl? For some reason most people think that cross-dressers are all gay... Which isn't true. (Speaking of people I know. I haven't asked everybody their opinions... I'm not a survey website)

I'm not sure about this, but I think this is where the whole thing plays out.
One might (?) argue that sexual orientation (and thus non-necessary desire of a single gender) is a social construct and that thus it is indeed transphobia to have wanted to develop something with someone that was totally fine for you until you knew what the gender was.

The whole label thing has gotten quite out of hand as people want to make their own and sort of nitpick each difference. Couple that with the fact that nowadays, nobody want to offend anyone else.

Thanks for your post, I'm really glad you brought up these issues.

I am exactly criticizing pretty much everything you are asserting. Your post brings to bear a lot of the contradictions that transphobia relies upon. Given the science done on gender so far and misconceptions over sexual dimorphism (of which the science is slowly growing traction in the public's eye but the misconceptions still very common), I would like to assert that you are not, indeed, looking for a "woman," but a particular set of physical attributes attached to a person. This is, of course, acceptable to a seeking partner, but ultimately, IMO, has little substance in a satisfying relationship. Unless, of course, that relationship is solely predicated on the body of someone instead of the whole package of someone, character and gender included.

Nonetheless, I suppose I can understand your conception of what makes a woman a woman. At large, "woman" is typically mapped to a set of breasts, reproductive system consisting of typical female anatomy (uterus, Fallopian tubes, vagina, vulva, clitoris -- arguable, etc.), hormones, neurology, physiology... Part of my social commentary was in hopes of bringing this issue to light.

When a guy looks to score with a woman, what does he actually seek? If he really only seeks typical female physiology, then we might say they seek only to score with ciswomen -- or just a set of female anatomy. However, what if he were to come across a person with typically female physiology who is transgender and identifies their gender as male and also has no interest in other men? Would he still seek to score with such a person?

Further, it would be necessary to define what "score" means in this case -- if it means to enter a romantic relationship or to go for an instance of casual sex.

What someone in your case is expecting in meaningful terms is someone whose self-identified gender aligns with their birth-designated sex. If their intent is made honestly, transparently, and explicitly, I would not be upset whatsoever.

However, if they say they only want to enter a relationship with a woman but rejects transwomen, then yes, I would be a little upset.

I'll respond more as I can and to what inquiries might be presented. I also have a small cache of studies pertaining to gender and transsexualism (a term in itself not particularly great).

EDIT:


Hell yeah you did.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 31 2014, 11:20 pm by Sand Wraith.

On that note, "Science" isn't a monolithic entity of information. A lot of sociological and psychological studies directly contradict any evolutionary or biological studies on the sexual dimorphism issue (a quick look at the wikipedia page is a perfect example of this). Although this doesn't disprove either or both sides of the respective fields, it does certainly make one question the validity of each camps' statements and findings (just to be clear, and I shouldn't have to say this: it does not disprove each camp as a whole).
Yeah, I did. Like you said, guilty pleasure.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Aug 31 2014, 11:30 pm by Generalpie.

A few things. This person is always themselves. I would only call this guy what he identifies as. Specifically, what they ask of me I shall do what I can to respect. I would ask what pronouns they would like to use and if there is any need to specifically clarify that under different contexts a different gender is to be used. Realistically, it would depend on them to clarify. I can ask questions that I might think are pertinent.

I would call them genderfluid (their identified gender changes over time). Sexuality? Fluid too I suppose, maybe bi. Not a big deal really.

No, not all crossdressers are gay, nor trans. Crossdressing in general I suppose depends a lot on whether you wish to assume gender binarism or not.


I do not support your generalization; it is not sufficiently critical or analytical.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Aug 31 2014, 11:31 pm by Sand Wraith.

Would you mind linking me the Wikipedia page you're talking about and perhaps point me out to a specific keyword I should CTRL+F for? Also, a possible explanation is simply that humans altogether have evolved a lot to a point where evolutionary rhetoric doesn't really apply except in a historical sense.