Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Genderfuck you.

Page: (1)2 3 4 5 6

pointless and uncalled for

11:56 / 22.01.02

From SFD'd thread it has occured to me to ask this.

Say for some reason someone pulls a completely unexpected genderfuck on you. You're about to get down to business when you realise that the person your about to get down with is not of the gender that you thought they were and by dint of sexuality would not want to have sex with them. On top of that it transpires that the person intentionally masked their gender from you and knew that thier gender was contrary to your desires.

How would you feel?

Would it make any difference if there had been any sexual contact before you found out? (i.e. hands, mouth)

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:00 / 22.01.02

Good move starting this thread - I had a response I wanted to post to stuff you said in the other one, but I'll put it here instead shortly. Just a quick thought though:

"and knew that thier gender was contrary to your desires"

Surely there's an argument to say that if you were just about to "get down to business" with them, then their gender wasn't contrary to your desires?

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

12:05 / 22.01.02

Well, exactly. I mean, you meet some hot little number, go dancing, go back to hir place and, just because they happened to be kitted out with different plumbing than you expected, you go all scared and "don't make me gay! Please don't make me gay!"...

...and that's their problem?

[ 22-01-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Rain ]

pointless and uncalled for

12:05 / 22.01.02

I was presuming a situation where you had some kind of agreement to have sex and then when the clothes came off realised that there person was not the man/woman that you thought they were.

Think of The Crying Game for reference on this one.

pointless and uncalled for

12:08 / 22.01.02

And thanks to Haus for putting a single track spin on this. No Haus, that's not it at all and I suspect you know it.

I'll remind you of this little clause in the question in case you didn't bother to read it the first time around.

quote: intentionally masked their gender from you

[ 22-01-2002: Message edited by: Wisdom of idiots ]

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

12:10 / 22.01.02

Slowly and carefully:

Their gender can clearly be one to which you are attracted. Their genitalia may not be to your taste.

There is a difference. The former is fundamental, the second cosmetic.

pointless and uncalled for

12:15 / 22.01.02

I'm going to sit on a physical basis here as opposed to a mental basis.

In which case the situation stands that they know you have no desire to see the genitalia that they posses and still pursue sexual contact.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

12:23 / 22.01.02

Ah, well, that's really rather a different thing. Have you ever, for example, pursued a girl who you know doesn't like men with hairy chests (if you are hairless), or smooth chests (if you are hirsute)? On the grounds that, hey, it's just a preference, and once she appreciates the holistic Wisdom of Idiots experience she will be won over?

Well...

pointless and uncalled for

12:26 / 22.01.02

No, I'm far to shy to pursue women.

Sorry, I would like to answer that with some experience but I'm afraid it's not possible.

12:34 / 22.01.02

back to the original question. it would depend on the situation involved. is this a relationship, or someone I picked up somewhere and rushed back home?

if the former, hell yes Id be pissed. I make it a point to divulge any information I think may be a problem in the future before getting even SLIGHTLY involved with someone (I have a kid, the father is still in my life, I see my ex fiance daily, I dont tolerate drugs in my home, etc). while Im not obligated to do this, I do it out of respect and to avoid getting emotionally involved with someone who is unwilling to deal with my issues. I expect the same, and if I dont get it I really dont feel that I owe the other person and continuation of the relationship as it began.

if the latter, Id say it also depends. to be brutally honest, how horny am I? is it an issue for her? its like any other surprise, her comfort level and the way she treats the situation would make a difference

12:35 / 22.01.02

quote:How would you feel?

Well I'm sure allot of people would be rather pissed off at being deceived some more than others....like Elmur Fudd for example..

12:36 / 22.01.02

I'm a little perturbed by the idea of someone 'pulling a genderfuck' on someone else - the only situation where this might be the case is one where, as you seem to be suggesting, someone deceives someone else about their sex *with malicious intent*.

Surely in all other cases the person who has the problem with the other's gender is the one who is 'pulling a genderfuck'.

Edited to make it clear it's the tenor of the phrase which I'm commenting on.

[ 22-01-2002: Message edited by: Kit-Cat Club ]

12:37 / 22.01.02

Hmm. I have to say I'm with WoI on this - just to the extent that I'd be pissed off and disappointed.

Nothing against girlie bits, very fond of my own, but other women's don't do anything for me.

And so it'd be a big disappointment, and I'd probably be annoyed and feel I'd been tricked.

Now I KNOW that the whole point here is I should be more open minded but, you know, that's how I'd feel. I wouldn't run screaming for the door, but I'd probably go and put the kettle on, make us some tea and then call her a cab.

pointless and uncalled for

12:43 / 22.01.02

Wow, I think that may be the first time someone has agreed with me on a sexuality issue on this board.

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:47 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
Think of The Crying Game

I'm not sure that's such a good idea, some of us might get a little... distracted.

The key phrases here seems to be "honesty and respect" as well as "reasonable expectations". When you say you hope everyone would be "respectful and honest", I think you should consider the possibility that someone who identifies as one gender might not be perceived as that gender by "reasonable" society. In other words, someone who identifies as a woman is not being dishonest when they 'present' themselves as a woman, or even if they go as far as to say "I am a woman". They're not necessarily "masking their gender", because as Haus says, gender and genitalia are not the same thing.

Now, the "respect" thing is a little tricker. I'll concede that hurt and confusion may result if person A discovers that person B, with whom they were hoping to become intimate, is not quite the person they had imagined. Only human, sadly. However, there are a number of possible ways that this can happen, and we do not always assume a) that person B ought to have told person A everything about them before any physical or emotional interaction occurred, or b) that all of the assumptions person A has made about person B are reasonable, and that person B deviating from them in any way is grounds enough for person A to be upset. In addition, respect is a two-way street... if you expect someone to "respect" you enough to tell you their personal details, presumably they can also expect you to respect them enough to respond to this in a respectful manner.

Another big stumbling block here, I think, is the idea that if certain assumptions (about the associations between appearance, gender and what's in yer pants) are common enough, this makes them 'reasonable'. Part of me wants to concede that we do have to have some kind of default idea of signified and signifier here in order for communication to function, but mostly these days I'm just not happy with ones we've got...

This might seem flippant, but it might be good to establish how exactly this is different (and I'll concede that it isn't the same) as getting someone home to find that they really don't look as good when naked...

Must think more about this.

[ 22-01-2002: Message edited by: Flyboy ]

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

12:49 / 22.01.02

Bitchkittie and Ariadne, you are the souls of good sense. In a sense, it's a bit like finding out someone has a wooden leg or a huge birthmark - it may be that you have a kink for wooden legs and birthmarks, you may be neutral about them and consider it as part of that person as a whole, or you may be one of "I'm sorry, but I just don't like prostheses/birthmarks" people, and it could ruin it for you no matter how much you like them. And I would expect that to be something that crops up in conversation in the course of any long courtship.

Except.....and I'm afraid I am rather looking for Rosa or someone else with the background knowledge to give me chapter and verse on this, is it not possible that somebody may think of themselves as "male" or "female" without the proviso "but with female/male genitalia"? Apart form anything els,e if you identify as male, then your genitalia are ipso facto male. Is it incumbent on everyone to add at the end of the first date, "I must warn you, I have a cock/don't have a cock"? Or indeed "I have a wooden leg/have no wooden leg"?

12:50 / 22.01.02

Bit confused with the expansive debate here – the answer seems straightforwardish to me : depends on whether your horniness overrides any annoyance with the fact that (as I’m interpreting the question) the person has deliberately deceived you.

DBC

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

12:54 / 22.01.02

But have they? How often do people go "arrrrr-harrrr! By slipping on this lumbershack shirt I shall get all the ladies I can eat! Arrrr-harrrr!"

There have to be easier ways...

The Planet of Sound

13:01 / 22.01.02

Well, there was that case in the tabloids last week about the 21-year-old woman pretending to be a 15-year-old boy so as to fondle some 15/14-year-old girls. Which strikes me as an extremely naughty thing to do.

13:03 / 22.01.02

Oh dear.

13:04 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Rain:
is it not possible that somebody may think of themselves as "male" or "female" without the proviso "but with female/male genitalia"? Apart form anything els,e if you identify as male, then your genitalia are ipso facto male. Is it incumbent on everyone to add at the end of the first date, "I must warn you, I have a cock/don't have a cock"? Or indeed "I have a wooden leg/have no wooden leg"?

very confusing. I can see both sides - the best possible solution I can think of is for everyone to get into the sack with an open mind, and if you dont like what you find to be as understanding and kind as you can. sure, you may be disappointed to find out that your new lover doesnt have the genitalia youd like/doesnt appreciate your genitalia - but it happens, even when the person youve gotten with IS someone who is in possession of the type of equipment you usually prefer

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

13:04 / 22.01.02

Yes, see the entire thread devoted to discussion of it. (This obviously re: the Schoolyard Seductress)

And is this woman a naughty predator? Or messy in the head? Or none of the above? "Lesbian Pimpernels stalk our Teens" is a great headline, but it may not actually be the 4-1-1 on the whole situation...

[ 22-01-2002: Message edited by: The Haus of Rain ]

13:06 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Rain:
"arrrrr-harrrr! By slipping on this lumbershack shirt I shall get all the ladies I can eat! Arrrr-harrrr!"

you always manage to make me like you, dammit

13:10 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Rain:
"arrrrr-harrrr! By slipping on this lumbershack shirt I shall get all the ladies I can eat! Arrrr-harrrr!"

Haus, get out of my dreams, get into my car.

WoI, you're working under the assumption that the person you are with will report anything out of the ordinary to you. More than likely that person's definition of "out of the ordinary" is completely different from your own, and so this person wouldn't feel the need to tell you any damn thing. It would be the same as you having to state your case in the event that the other person had expectations of you. Or, what if I were to pick you up on Friday and started thinking that your were the hottest damn drag king I had ever seen. Would it be your fault that I believed that way? And would it be your responsibility to offer up the facts before I unknowingly found out the truth?

Not to say I wouldn't be severely disappointed in some kind of miscommunication. But I hope I'd handle it in a mature way.

Two gender theory posts in one day. You people are rubbing off on me.

[ 22-01-2002: Message edited by: moriarty ]

pointless and uncalled for

13:23 / 22.01.02

quote: Is it incumbent on everyone to add at the end of the first date, "I must warn you, I have a cock/don't have a cock"? Or indeed "I have a wooden leg/have no wooden leg"?

Good point here, after all you may not be at the let's get naked stage of the relationship. However, I think that it would fall to a person to ensure that whatever equipment they may be sporting is acceptable to the other party. I'm not saying that "I've got cock" should be a mandatory phrase for all born with and still have cock people and so on.

I think that a lot of the time it's probably going to be clear cut case of the person will/will not like you on first contact.

But in the cases of ambiguity then I think that there's an ethical requirement to be sure that your intendee is in full understanding of just what they will find.

Haus about we all give each other a big lovely huggle?

13:26 / 22.01.02

Rubbing off on Moriarty...

"Got Cock?"

This thread is turning into catchphrase heaven....

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:33 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
However, I think that it would fall to a person to ensure that whatever equipment they may be sporting is acceptable to the other party.

...

But in the cases of ambiguity then I think that there's an ethical requirement to be sure that your intendee is in full understanding of just what they will find.

Hmm - but in that case, surely "I've got cock" isn't enough, is it? What if the cock in question isn't acceptable sporting equipment? Too long, too short, too large in girth? Maybe everyone should tell prospective lovers exactly the shape and size of their dangly bits. Maybe they should have a passport photo of 'em stuck to their breast pocket...

[ 22-01-2002: Message edited by: Flyboy ]

pointless and uncalled for

13:38 / 22.01.02

I think the original intent of this thread has been perverted beyond recognition.

Regrettable Juvenilia

13:41 / 22.01.02

Awwww, don't be like that. Unless you meant it in a good way.

The point I'm making, WoI, is that there are lots of ways in which a prospective lover might disappoint one when the time comes, including not having genitalia which are pleasing to you for one reason or another. To what extent should people be obligated to detail these potential shortcomings/differences in a social setting? And when is the oportune moment.

13:45 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
However, I think that it would fall to a person to ensure that whatever equipment they may be sporting is acceptable to the other party. I'm not saying that "I've got cock" should be a mandatory phrase for all born with and still have cock people and so on.

How else, then, to avoid inadvertently "deceiving" a prospective partner via those veils of fabric treachery we know as "clothing"?

Are we talking exclusively about transgender "deception" here or are we straying into those "you lied to me by not 'admitting' you're gay" situations?

pointless and uncalled for

13:47 / 22.01.02

I'm aware that there are many ways that a lover may disappoint. I was trying to deal with the disappointment derived from a genderfuck.

It seemed like a simply defined issue to debate and I don't understand where all of this other stuff came in from.

That's more of a reflection on me than anything else though.

13:51 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
It seemed like a simply defined issue to debate and I don't understand where all of this other stuff came in from.

The inherent (but hitherto-unconsidered) complexity of the issue itself, perhaps?

pointless and uncalled for

13:59 / 22.01.02

I'm fine with the complexity of the issue itself. I'm really trying to understand it. Perhaps I should look elsewhere for my answers.

14:05 / 22.01.02

quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
I'm fine with the complexity of the issue itself.

You don't seem to be. You seem rather unhappy that it isn't as "simply defined" as you originally thought - and there's a faint implication that others posters have unfairly clouded things as opposed to supplying straightforward (to you) "answers".

I guess that's why they call it "genderfucking" rather than "genderstatingclearly", eh?

[ 22-01-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]

14:10 / 22.01.02

Well, as far as I can see (bearing in mind that I am *no* expert on gender issues) there are two main strands to the situation you presented:

1) your expectations of a person's sex are confounded because their gender is the opposite of what you consider 'reasonable', based on their appearance (or how they present)

2) they have deliberately practised this deception on you for reasons of their own (unspecified).

Taking part 2 first: if anyone has deliberately and especially maliciously misled you about something relating to sex, you are likely to feel disappointed. That's fair enough, but it goes for pretty much any sexual or emotional matter and is certainly not particularly related to part 1). I think that people are feeling that you might be implying that, if someone doesn't reveal that their sexual organs are not necessarily those you might expect from their gender presentation, they are by definition doing this deliberately to confound you. Which is not the case, as several people have pointed out.

Part 1 is really a separate issue, and is about how far you are justified in making assumptions about a person's physical characteristics from their presentation, and what your reaction is when your assumptions are proved wrong.

So your reaction is not necessarily a result of any action or intention on the part of the other person, and is therefore your responsibility.

Page: (1)2 3 4 5 6