53 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Only the woke lot back in the west are trying to get trans included as women, the rest don't like it particularly in sport.

Sure, you can see why someone might object to people with male physiology competing against biological women, but that's because they have an unfair advantage.

 

I'm not sure how someone wanting to date a ladyboy is in the same league in terms of how bothered people are.

 

Doesn't seem particularly relevant to me.  It's simply two consenting adults.

 

53 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

On this thread no one cares they are just making the point you can't be banging LBs or getting banged by them and still be straight, simple as that. They may disagree but they are wrong.

They seem to care an awful lot for people who don't care.  

 

53 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

The other major point is just because we query the logic still being straight it doesn't mean we'll suppressing secret LB feelings.

Not secret ladyboy feelings, but being that bothered about how someone who dates a ladyboy should be labelled seems to be an indication of something.  As I said, the position of needing to label someone as gay while also seeming to need that to be a negative thing suggests at least a little homophobia.

 

53 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

If you could just accept those two things we could move on

Or you could accept that people can hold different opinions and we could move on. ????‍♂️

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

 

As I said, the position of needing to label someone as gay while also seeming to need that to be a negative thing suggests at least a little homophobia.

 

We are saying not straight, not sure why you find it hard to grasp, it seems to come under Q in LGBTQ not gay, so any homophobia is in your mind, anyway we aren't going to agree so might as well give up

According to some, gender and labels are irrelevant, as some seem to just think they are what they want them to be.   For what ever reason, I simply think they are in denial of being gay or bisexual, as if there is something wrong with that.

 

Just get rid of all the labels, as they seem to be a bit silly anyway.  You have penis, you're male, you don't you're female.

 

I know ladyboys who don't have implants, so are they still ladyboys, or gay.  And if 2 ladyboys are having sex, then in their mind are they lesbians.  It's all a bit silly.

 

Simply go with pansexual, as all inclusive.  Works for me.  But if I'm suckin' a penis, don't try to tell me it's on a women, or try to tell me some woman has her penis in my bum.  That sounds quite silly.

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

YOU said it was.

 

Your words:

 

 

I await those who claim that a man having sex with another man is not deviant.

 

You know perfectly well and you mentioned it too that labeling people SEXUALLY DEVIANT opens them up to harmful stigma and discrimination. Promoting calling same sex deviant is very noxious to your so called best friends.

 

Do they know that you consider them sexual deviants?

 

You continue to suggest I'm lying/inventing matters in order to present my position - hence 'so called best friends'.  You (and now others) continue to take what I say out of context despite my clarity regarding the inference of my comments.  I will debate any subject with the best of them but In refuse to hold a discussion with someone who twists what I say or tries to put their own spin on it.  Anyone reading my posts fully and not picking out only the wording that assists their position, can quite clearly see that nothing I have written is either derogatory, bigotted or discriminatory.  Where it can be taken either way I have made my inferences quite clear.  The fact that you choose to ignore those explanations and use only an alternative inference shows the weakness of your position.

 

On that basis my final response is:

 

Anyone who thinks a ladyboy is female and therefore those who have sex with them/are attracted to them are not in fact Gay or Bi - is living in their own parallel reality.  Whether pre or post op, a ladyboy remains male and therefore a man having sex with or who is attracted to them is by definition, either Gay or Bi.  Heterosexual attraction/sex is something that occurs between opposite sexes - ladyboys are not female. The use of definitions is only negative if you want it to be - they are a necessary part of any language but they should be used in context.

 

Unless there are some major advances in medical science ladyboys will remain male whether someone thinks differently or not.  It is nothing to do with how someone identifies themselves, that can only take place in their own room - alone.  When interacting with others ladyboys remain male.

 

I could identify as a bloody Horse, would that make me a Horse to other people?

 

The human species relies on reproduction between opposite sexes. We have advanced in as much as there is now no need for a coming together of the two sexes to complete conception but there remains a need for 2 sexes.  Therefore the 'norm' for our species is male and female - anything that differs from that norm is a deviation. 

 

My flights to Thailand have a pre-agreed flight plan - going off that route is a deviation and not necessarily negative. If you choose to take my use of deviance in the negative despite the use of the term being accompanied with a contextual explanation - then you have a problem.

 

I refuse to continue in a discussion with someone who twists what I say but would comment that it shows the weakness of your postion - a position which appears to be a defence of their own behaviour, better known as having a 'chip on your shoulder'.  It is not necessary for you to defend your own deviance from the norm.  I haven't seen a single post here from anyone that slurs Gays and Bi's or presents them in a negative way. 

 

Being 'different' doesn't make you any lesser a person than the next but accusations of lies without any foundation and deliberately taking comments out of context when that context is clear, does.

14 minutes ago, Jotnar said:

Just get rid of all the labels, as they seem to be a bit silly anyway.  You have penis, you're male, you don't you're female.

 

I like the labels. 

 

Anyway, I guy who's had the chop will never be a female. 

 

 

10 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

My flights to Thailand have a pre-agreed flight plan - going off that route is a deviation and not necessarily negative. If you choose to take my use of deviance in the negative despite the use of the term being accompanied with a contextual explanation - then you have a problem.

Deviate: to do something that is different from the usual or common way of behaving

 

Diviant: used to describe a person or behaviour that is not usual and is generally considered to be unacceptable

1 hour ago, BangkokReady said:

Deviate: to do something that is different from the usual or common way of behaving

 

Diviant: used to describe a person or behaviour that is not usual and is generally considered to be unacceptable

Will you try anything in an attempt further your position? Do you not realise that by ignoring contextual explanations you are actually weakening your position?

 

However, without evidence, purely an opinion regarding the use of the word 'generallly' in what I presume to be a dictionary definition above (un-credited) - I would say that the general pubic would consider males having sex with other males - unacceptable. That is not my position, each to his own is mine - its purely a guess at what the position of the public as a whole would be.

 

I add the comment on my position for clarity but fully expect it to be ignored if you carry on in the way you previously have.

 

Again, where I have used a descriptor that could be considered either negatively or positively, I have explained the context in which it is meant.  I believe I have repeated that on each occasion but if I have not, if its part of an ongoing conversation, I should not need to.

 

Once again you are twisting my words to suit your purpose.

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

You continue to suggest I'm lying/inventing matters in order to present my position - hence 'so called best friends'.  You (and now others) continue to take what I say out of context despite my clarity regarding the inference of my comments.  I will debate any subject with the best of them but In refuse to hold a discussion with someone who twists what I say or tries to put their own spin on it.  Anyone reading my posts fully and not picking out only the wording that assists their position, can quite clearly see that nothing I have written is either derogatory, bigotted or discriminatory.  Where it can be taken either way I have made my inferences quite clear.  The fact that you choose to ignore those explanations and use only an alternative inference shows the weakness of your position.

 

On that basis my final response is:

 

Anyone who thinks a ladyboy is female and therefore those who have sex with them/are attracted to them are not in fact Gay or Bi - is living in their own parallel reality.  Whether pre or post op, a ladyboy remains male and therefore a man having sex with or who is attracted to them is by definition, either Gay or Bi.  Heterosexual attraction/sex is something that occurs between opposite sexes - ladyboys are not female. The use of definitions is only negative if you want it to be - they are a necessary part of any language but they should be used in context.

 

Unless there are some major advances in medical science ladyboys will remain male whether someone thinks differently or not.  It is nothing to do with how someone identifies themselves, that can only take place in their own room - alone.  When interacting with others ladyboys remain male.

 

I could identify as a bloody Horse, would that make me a Horse to other people?

 

The human species relies on reproduction between opposite sexes. We have advanced in as much as there is now no need for a coming together of the two sexes to complete conception but there remains a need for 2 sexes.  Therefore the 'norm' for our species is male and female - anything that differs from that norm is a deviation. 

 

My flights to Thailand have a pre-agreed flight plan - going off that route is a deviation and not necessarily negative. If you choose to take my use of deviance in the negative despite the use of the term being accompanied with a contextual explanation - then you have a problem.

 

I refuse to continue in a discussion with someone who twists what I say but would comment that it shows the weakness of your postion - a position which appears to be a defence of their own behaviour, better known as having a 'chip on your shoulder'.  It is not necessary for you to defend your own deviance from the norm.  I haven't seen a single post here from anyone that slurs Gays and Bi's or presents them in a negative way. 

 

Being 'different' doesn't make you any lesser a person than the next but accusations of lies without any foundation and deliberately taking comments out of context when that context is clear, does.

I can well understand why you would wish to cut off communication as you have been caught out in incredibly damning contradictions.

 

Now you suggest that implying your gay best friends are sexual deviates is a neutral descriptor akin to flight changes and you actually expect readers to believe that!

 

But you yourself posted a link revealing that you indeed do well understand fully the severity of labeling people sexual deviates and the DAMAGE such name calling inflicts on others 

 

To wit, from a post of yours.

 

However, sexual deviance is also an idea about which most persons hold very strong views, and react in stigmatizing and ostracizing ways.
 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeoss091.pub2

 

 

It might be more credible if you picked one position no matter how toxic and owned it.

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

There are actual biological intersex people.

Of course there are. 

.....and I'm sure they have their extended special rights afforded as well. 

 

Ain't life grand. 

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

 

It might be more credible if you picked one position no matter how toxic and owned it

I have been quite clear on my position but clearly there is a need to repeat it - despite saying previously that I would not reply to you.

 

1. A male having sexual relations with another male cannot be, by definition, heterosexual. He is homosexual or bisexual.

2. A Ladyboy is not a female and can never be so. They remain male.

3. I am not anti gay, anti bi or any other such thing.

4. I believe that all men are equal and should be treated as such whatever their orientation.

 

ALL the above points have been entirely clear in ALL of my posts. Its just that you, in an attempt to prove your own points, have singled out the negative despite explanations being given.  You have also alluded to parts of my conversation being lies or made up to suit my purpose - without a shred of evidence.

 

I cannot be any clearer than I have been above and I have told you that I will not continue a conversation with someone who twists what I say and accuses me of making things up.

 

Now, go ahead - twist what I've said above, there is no point in me continuing to converse with someone who's position is so weak that they have to qoute out of context.

 

18 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Will you try anything in an attempt further your position? Do you not realise that by ignoring contextual explanations you are actually weakening your position?

 

However, without evidence, purely an opinion regarding the use of the word 'generallly' in what I presume to be a dictionary definition above (un-credited) - I would say that the general pubic would consider males having sex with other males - unacceptable. That is not my position, each to his own is mine - its purely a guess at what the position of the public as a whole would be.

 

I add the comment on my position for clarity but fully expect it to be ignored if you carry on in the way you previously have.

 

Again, where I have used a descriptor that could be considered either negatively or positively, I have explained the context in which it is meant.  I believe I have repeated that on each occasion but if I have not, if its part of an ongoing conversation, I should not need to.

 

Once again you are twisting my words to suit your purpose.

I guess I see it as, I know some gay  people and they seem to be perfectly decent people. I can't imagine saying to them that what they do is wrong or disgusting. (Of course there are bad gay people just as there are bad straight people. But the fact is there are straight people who do things in the fulfilment of their "acceptable" sexual desires that have negative consequences and hurt others, while there are gay people who harm no one.)

 

I just see no reason to describe gay people as doing something bad, or to need to describe men who date ladyboys as being gay (or "not straight") and doing something bad.

 

Words matter, and I don't see any reason to say things that would make anyone feel bad about who they are just because of their sexual preference, something they have no control over.

 

I don't feel any great need to discredit you or desperately further my position. I'm simply contributing to a discussion.

 

????‍♂️

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

In every country in the world heterosexual men are socially dominant. You have nothing to complain about.

It does get difficult at times, maybe you don't realise how hard it is ?

1 hour ago, zzaa09 said:

Of course there are. 

.....and I'm sure they have their extended special rights afforded as well. 

 

Ain't life grand. 

No special rights.

Sexual minorities only seek equal rights.

52 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It does get difficult at times, maybe you don't realise how hard it is ?

Huh?

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

I have been quite clear on my position but clearly there is a need to repeat it - despite saying previously that I would not reply to you.

 

1. A male having sexual relations with another male cannot be, by definition, heterosexual. He is homosexual or bisexual.

2. A Ladyboy is not a female and can never be so. They remain male.

3. I am not anti gay, anti bi or any other such thing.

4. I believe that all men are equal and should be treated as such whatever their orientation.

 

 

 

1. TOTALLY WRONG!

You are conflating two different things  Sex acts and sexual orientation. NOT THE SAME! 

 

2. LBs are according to Thai culture, women of the second kind. Nobody is saying they are the same biologically as born females. There is more to gender identity than genitals.

 

3. I only know you by what you have posted. Calling gay sex deviant is pretty darned anti gay. 

 

4. That's nice.

 

Referring to point 1, against my better jugement I will get personal.

 

I have some experience of women. Yet I am not straight or bi. You would insist I am bi. rather than gay. You would be 100 percent wrong. Each individual knows their own orientation best. You assert differently, that you make the rules for all  The arrogance in that is stunning 

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

I have been quite clear on my position but clearly there is a need to repeat it - despite saying previously that I would not reply to you.

 

1. A male having sexual relations with another male cannot be, by definition, heterosexual. He is homosexual or bisexual.

2. A Ladyboy is not a female and can never be so. They remain male.

3. I am not anti gay, anti bi or any other such thing.

4. I believe that all men are equal and should be treated as such whatever their orientation.

 

ALL the above points have been entirely clear in ALL of my posts. Its just that you, in an attempt to prove your own points, have singled out the negative despite explanations being given.  You have also alluded to parts of my conversation being lies or made up to suit my purpose - without a shred of evidence.

 

I cannot be any clearer than I have been above and I have told you that I will not continue a conversation with someone who twists what I say and accuses me of making things up.

 

Now, go ahead - twist what I've said above, there is no point in me continuing to converse with someone who's position is so weak that they have to qoute out of context.

 

I love it, well said. 

You've been very patient. 

I would have gave up long ago. 

 

These types are the kings of twist

 

2 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

I love it, well said. 

You've been very patient. 

I would have gave up long ago. 

 

These types are the kings of twist

 

These types. Good one.

Out of contect quote and response removed, along with replies,

7 hours ago, Jotnar said:

Ladyboy, simply a warm place to put your best friend/penis in, or to have someone else's best friend put inside you, which ever or all orifice that may involve.

 

Just enjoy it, and don't try to characterize it with adjectives & pronouns, to justify something it is not.  2 gender in my world, from birth, male/female, with/without, and what consenting adults do, simply enjoy it.  Don't over think it.

Every hole a goal

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Cute.

That's about male genitals without context.

A male context would be assumed in that context sans any conflicting information.

 

A LB on.the other hand presents her whole self in the context of a female presentation. In that case her D if it happens to be revealed is loaded with context. Female context.

 

As everyone should know by now, the most important sex organ is the BRAIN.

Brain or no brain. Sometimes it is very helpful to go back to to the very basics: We are here to eat and drink so we can reproduce, like any other organism on this planet. Us, as well as some microbes have no other "duties" on this earth.  Certain hormones make sure that we want to "reproduce" from dawn to sunset. The same goes for any microbe.
Hetero sexulity was "ordered" by main religions. Other forms of sexuality would not produce "offspring" (future followers of a religion).
"Non hetero-sex" can be interesting, rewarding and opening new horizons. And, as an other poster remarked: Men to men sex need no instructions, as it is known what "men" like.
All forms of "sex"  should be practiced freely, as the mood strikes. Bare of religious oppressive "guidelines".

Before "Christianisation", the Romans had it good. Sex with everyone and everything. Including their wifes, slaves etc. If not available, a goat would do. Everything perfectly "normal" before "Chrisianisation" and no cause for any "outrage". Not to forget: The Romans were the pillars of "civilisation".
- In Pattaya, we came close to "re-juvenate" the old liberal Roman ways. It almost worked.

8 minutes ago, swissie said:

Brain or no brain. Sometimes it is very helpful to go back to to the very basics: We are here to eat and drink so we can reproduce, like any other organism on this planet. Us, as well as some microbes have no other "duties" on this earth.  Certain hormones make sure that we want to "reproduce" from dawn to sunset. The same goes for any microbe.
Hetero sexulity was "ordered" by main religions. Other forms of sexuality would not produce "offspring" (future followers of a religion).
"Non hetero-sex" can be interesting, rewarding and opening new horizons. And, as an other poster remarked: Men to men sex need no instructions, as it is known what "men" like.
All forms of "sex"  should be practiced freely, as the mood strikes. Bare of religious oppressive "guidelines".

Before "Christianisation", the Romans had it good. Sex with everyone and everything. Including their wifes, slaves etc. If not available, a goat would do. Everything perfectly "normal" before "Chrisianisation" and no cause for any "outrage". Not to forget: The Romans were the pillars of "civilisation".
- In Pattaya, we came close to "re-juvenate" the old liberal Roman ways. It almost worked.

Not keen on goats. 

23 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Including their wifes, slaves

to me, sex with a slave is rape.  shouldn't be romanticized.  it's not like some p...n where the master sees a hot sex slave with a killer body...............no, it's rape.  

 

Furthers the point of others.  you come to Thailand with all these "weird" sex fantasies and a ladyboy is your "slave".   or you are a "slave" to the ladyboy.  

 

In the year 3084, Pattaya will be regarded as the holiest of places on Earth, 100000x more holy than the holy grail.    Aliens will rush to Pattaya from all over the galaxy.   

1 minute ago, Iamfalang said:

to me, sex with a slave is rape.  shouldn't be romanticized.  it's not like some p...n where the master sees a hot sex slave with a killer body...............no, it's rape.  

 

Furthers the point of others.  you come to Thailand with all these "weird" sex fantasies and a ladyboy is your "slave".   or you are a "slave" to the ladyboy.  

 

In the year 3084, Pattaya will be regarded as the holiest of places on Earth, 100000x more holy than the holy grail.    Aliens will rush to Pattaya from all over the galaxy.   

You are quoting somebody else

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

You are quoting somebody else

sorry, my mistake.  Not sparkie....  

 

@swissie

12 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Not keen on goats. 

Try it and report back. ???? No cause for reporting back in any way in the roman empire. Commonplace for "undersexed" slaves and other social "underlings". To sleep with underage girls and boys was no issue at all. A matter of routine "acceptance". Part of daily life, not "condemmnable" in any form or shape.

While conducting "unaccepable sexual practicies", they managed to build an empire on the side. Remarkable!

9 minutes ago, swissie said:

Try it and report back. ???? No cause for reporting back in any way in the roman empire. Commonplace for "undersexed" slaves and other social "underlings". To sleep with underage girls and boys was no issue at all. A matter of routine "acceptance". Part of daily life, not "condemmnable" in any form or shape.

While conducting "unaccepable sexual practicies", they managed to build an empire on the side. Remarkable!

Romans were tough. Modern day Italians seem weak. Hard to imagine.

4 hours ago, swissie said:

Before "Christianisation", the Romans had it good. Sex with everyone and everything. Including their wifes, slaves etc. If not available, a goat would do. Everything perfectly "normal" before "Chrisianisation" and no cause for any "outrage". Not to forget: The Romans were the pillars of "civilisation".

I've often been told that Italian men are more partial to LBs than most other nationalities. Perhaps it's something in the Roman genes then ????

21 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Not if they self identify as straight. Most fans of LBs self identify as straight. The LGBTQ civil rights movement RESPECTS people's right to self identify and that of course includes straight men.

Ok, well if self identification is what you believe in, then that's a whole different argument. It kind of makes the debate you've had with me and others pretty futile. 

Effectively (from your standpoint) a man could exclusively fancy men, exclusively have sex with men, yet self identify as heterosexual. 

 

On 5/7/2022 at 12:44 PM, Sparktrader said:

Ladyboys are men

no they are women 

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

Ok, well if self identification is what you believe in, then that's a whole different argument. It kind of makes the debate you've had with me and others pretty futile. 

Effectively (from your standpoint) a man could exclusively fancy men, exclusively have sex with men, yet self identify as heterosexual. 

 

That's an extreme, loaded  and biased way of framing this issue.

 

Sure there could be rare cases where a person's self identification isn't logical but overall as a generalization people do know their own orientation. Of course because of social stigmas many closeted men will tell others differently than what they know to.be true themselves. Younger men may legitimately not know yet, still working that out and women are much more fluid than men explaining the phenom of college lesbians, then straight later. Then there are situational things. Males in sex segregated boarding schools or prisons may often be very sexually active yet correctly certain of their hetero orientation. Then there are closeted gay men in straight marriages, performing the straight sex but definitely knowing themselves that they are not straight at all.

 

You seem to imply that you're looking for pure simple black and white rules to determine the truth about a person's orientation. We're humans. We're complicated. It's not that black and white.

 

There are scientific methods designed to objectively help to determine this though. This involves showing the test subject different kinds of porn and measuring their penis engorgement with an electronic sleeve 

 

I'm not aware of a specific study using penis sleeves of straight identified men into LBs but that would certainly be interesting.