Men's IssuesVICE - "The Straight Men Who Have Sex with Trans Women" (i.e, gay men who lie to themselves)

submitted by BEB from vice.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They can be heterosexual, and so far as I've seen, they seem to always start out as such. In the case of the Vice article, I would not label the male protagonist heterosexual since he's certainly gone very far out of his way in his pursuits--where partnering with a normal women would have been much easier. His sexual, romantic interest in the transwoman is certainly much more compelling to him than his interest in women, if he has one.

Often they seem to like both women and transwomen, in different proportions in different individuals. Could be a 10% interest in transwomen, with women making up the last 90%, etc.

They don't like men.

I can provide you with off-site resources: blog articles, academic papers, etc, if you would like to know more.

A few other posters here, myself included, have been having a series of in-depth discussions on the topic. Trying to ascertain just what this phenomena is, do they belong somewhere in LGB, should they have their own rights movement, etc.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Often they seem to like both women and transwomen, in different proportions in different individuals. Could be a 10% interest in transwomen, with women making up the last 90%, etc. They don't like men.

Do you think that this could be explained as "heterosexual men who confuse gender with sex"? At least in some cases? Because that's the sense I get here. To them, "woman" isn't a biological sex; it's an image. Primarily one created by the female gender-role: a matter of presentation (clothing, hairstyle, makeup, behavior). Artifice. So it's irrelevant whether the person displaying these things is male. Or, rather, they cannot BE male, if they have these trappings; those override their actual sex (including having a dick). In other words, "feminine = woman", and these guys react accordingly.

To be honest, I perceive a less extreme version of this in many straight men; they often treat women who aren't doing the artificial-femininity-thing as non-women (no matter what they look like)-- they almost seem to regard what she's wearing as secondary sex characteristics. And then, at an extreme even beyond the transwomen-attracted, you have the straight men with fetishes for high heels, lingerie, long hair, and other female-gender-role accoutrements, who may just dispense with a person to wear 'em altogether.

Essentially, it seems to me that it's common for straight men to fetishize women; AGP and GAMP are further along the continuum than the usual "if she has short hair, no makeup, and unisex clothes, she might as well be a dude"... but it's still the same continuum.

Does this ring true for anyone else?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you think that this could be explained as "heterosexual men who confuse gender with sex"?

Well certainly if you put men, women, and trans women in a line-up, they would be able to tell the difference between them, yet that does not mean the conceptualization of confusion is necessarily wrong. It very well may be a conflict in their lizard brains that gives them this attraction; a like for women and a dislike for men, given an amalgamation of each sex in one person, it short-circuits and off they go. I think they very well can understand that their object choice is male, intellectually, at least. Nobody has an idea as to the aetiology, but I really don't think every heterosexual man out there is vulnerable to it. It's likely got a biological foundation, but I can't back that statement up with any data.

However, in this case, the amalgamation is required. The trans woman is not regarded as just "another one of the gals." The artificing plays a role, but a naked trans women with no adornments is still an appealing erotic target. The interest does not go away when the clothes come off, as is also true of heterosexual men's interest in women.

To them, "woman" isn't a biological sex; it's an image.

Giving this a heterocentric treatment:

Yes, it very much does seem to be a prevalent, culturally-influenced concept. It's not just a flesh-and-blood woman, it is an idea, an image. This is where Queer Theorist anchor Judith Butler got her fame from, but she decided, incorrectly, that the concept of woman is all socially constructed and divorced from material reality. Whoops. The truth of the matter is that it is both.

I might add that most of the artificing directly plays to and emphasizes the biological facts. I've never heard of someone having a fetish for earrings, for instance.

  • Long hair demonstrates health.

  • Makeup hides blemishes.

  • Heels accentuate gait.

  • Clothing, well, you get the idea.

Ultimately, I think it's concealed ovulation in our species that lays the framework for female-gender-role accoutrements, because humans do not have any overt signals of when "it's time." It is no longer a simple matter, as lesser mammals have it, of a stimulus and a response. It is also likely this that gives rise to our sexuality going off the rails from time to time, and by off-the-rails, I mean anything that's not sex with normal men or women, irrespective of the sexes of the participants.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The artificing plays a role, but a naked trans women with no adornments is still an appealing erotic target.

But when naked, with no adornments, how can you even tell that this is a trans woman, and not simply... a non-trans man? Are we talking someone who's had "feminizing" medical procedures here? If so, which ones?

I might add that most of the artificing directly plays to and emphasizes the biological facts. I've never heard of someone having a fetish for earrings, for instance.

Neither have I (though let's not forget good ol' Rule 34!)... but what about high-heeled shoes? Common fetish for straight men, despite NOT emphasizing any biological aspect of femaleness. (Feet are unisex!)

  • Long hair demonstrates health.
  • Makeup hides blemishes.
  • Heels accentuate gait.

Sure, except... why only for women? Aren't health, being blemish-free, and gait important in MEN, too? Moreover, all three things (long hair, makeup, heels) have been standard MALE accoutrements during various historical periods.

Ultimately, I think it's concealed ovulation in our species that lays the framework for female-gender-role accoutrements, because humans do not have any overt signals of when "it's time."

Color me skeptical here. In my view, when it comes to behavior, comparisons between humans and all other animal species can only go so far. Not because I'm some science-denier who rejects the fact that we ARE animals, or the product of evolution, or that male and female are fundamentally reproductive categories; rather, it's that our conceptual intelligence makes us an anomaly. And, I stress, NOT necessarily in the sense of our being "better"; this intelligence means that we (unlike other animals) can have ideas... and the nature of ideas is that they are sometimes... bullshit. As in stupid and untrue. Like, yanno, transgenderism! Or gender roles as a whole.

So I think that the basis for these accoutrements is what the female gender-role boils down to: "inferior". Specifically, to males. Thus, whatever a culture associates with lesser/subordinate status (especially if it caters to male preferences) tends to be automatically coded "female". Such as being decorative, a sex object... trivial.

One of the reasons this seems more plausible to me than the hidden-ovulation theory is that, in numerous times and places, the female physical ideal often contradicts it. By this logic, men should be most attracted to women who "appear" fertile, right? Exhibit the visible signs of ovulation? Well, since female fertility is closely tied to having a significant amount of body fat, thinness in women tends to indicate the opposite-- that we are NOT ovulating; indeed, that we CANNOT (at least until we gain some weight). And yet, the most desirable female "type" is often THIN. How do you explain that? Not to mention the prevalence across history of pre-pubescent "child brides". So I think that something other than "ovulating = HAWT" must be going on here.

Coming back to the original question ("str8 ♂ + trans ♀ = WTF???"), I think perhaps this is at least part of the answer. If "woman = inferior", then... "inferior = woman". That is, having the traits associated with inferiority-- being seen as weak, degraded, vulnerable-- MAKE one a "woman"; they are "feminine". And (too) many straight men react accordingly. Hence their sexual response to "weaker" men in prison, children (including boys)... and "trans women". Even if they can plainly see that the latter is male, he's a DEGRADED male, simply by virtue of "identifying as a woman", and thus, for sexual purposes, he is a woman.

Or, as the repulsive "trans woman" Andrea Long Chu so memorably put it: what is a woman besides "dead eyes" and "an expectant asshole"?

So it seems that, for more straight men than I'd like to think... that's about all it takes. :(

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But when naked, with no adornments, how can you even tell that this is a trans woman, and not simply... a non-trans man? Are we talking someone who's had "feminizing" medical procedures here? If so, which ones?

This isn't without risk, but if you want to get a good handle on it, I suggest viewing the pornographic material. There's ample data available on Reddit to get a general understanding.

but what about high-heeled shoes?

You made my point. It's high-heeled shoes, yes. They change gait. Flats are not fetishized AFAIK.

Sure, except... why only for women? Aren't health, being blemish-free, and gait important in MEN, too?

Men are more concerned about looks in women, because of basic reproductive fitness. Women are more concerned about social status and wealth in men on the basis of long-term support of the offspring. It does not mean that women flat-out don't care about looks in men. Reproductive burden is very high in women.

And yet, the most desirable female "type" is often THIN. How do you explain that?

Simple, they're still ovulating, despite being thin.

So I think that the basis for these accoutrements is what the female gender-role boils down to: "inferior". Specifically, to males. Thus, whatever a culture associates with lesser/subordinate status (especially if it caters to male preferences) tends to be automatically coded "female". Such as being decorative, a sex object... trivial.

Class power hierarchies, or interpersonal power. Well, certainly there are sadomasochists out there that eroticize these concepts, but I wouldn't quite go so far to say that heterosexual men are inherently sadistic, in the paraphilic sense of the word--pain, power, humiliation. There's a pretty large gap between the paraphilic and the euphilic, I'd say it's qualitative, not quantitative, but I could be wrong.

In the case of Chu, "The truth is I have never been able to differentiate liking women from wanting to be like them," that's classic AGP. Some researchers have suggested that people with one paraphilia often have another, so you could very well find masochism in Chu.

AGP latches onto stereotypes. AGP does not enculture itself with feminisms before deciding what ought to be erotic, and it starts at an early age, long before a person has the life experience or faculty to have a nuanced view of men and women.

I think we're on the same page insofar as we can look at atypical sexuality as a useful tool to inform our understanding of the majority phenomena, but we do have to be careful to prove out the hypotheses.

Hence their sexual response to "weaker" men in prison

Which does not surprise me, but it's a constrained situation, because there are no women available. I'm assuming that they are employing fantasy to obtain arousal and gratification, and the closer a flesh and blood person is to the heterosexual ideal (in this case, a woman) then the easier it is. There's also the issue of sexual economics and coercive behavior.