Hyperfemininity and Hypersexualization and trans attracted men (This be deep muh nig)

Now before I tart this, I mean no tea and no shade to any girls out there. This is simply my observations and questions so please dont take it as offensive...you too boys.


Now... As a trans woman, my personal goal is to pass, which I tend to do pretty well. Part of being passable, to me, is being "natural". Now granted some trans women dont end up having "natural" beauty and they change that so that they do look ore 'natural'. This isn't about those girls.

What I'd like to know is this:

Why do so many men on this forum seem to be extremely turned on by women, who in my opinion, surpass or exceed what is "natural" in appearance. Such as unnaturally pumped large asses, unnaturally placed breasts, unnaturally enchnaced thighs and legs and ect ect. When i see girls like that I see them as a sort of caricature of a woman. A sort of over exaggeration that makes them, in my opinion, more clownish than 'womanly'. I guess my approach to transition is different. The desire to blend and match with women, as apposed to trying to be the most sexualized woman in the room.

At times i ask myself, what job, aside from porn, could these women actually do? Would they be hired to flip burgers, clean floors or any other entry level or possiby unskilled jobs? I cant imagine so. I know of very few cis gendered women who have hypersexualized images who work and thrive in nonsexal environments. I personally do not want any major surgeries because i believe that I have natural beauty, whether you agree or not. I guess sometiems I feel BIT left out because of that. lol. Dont get me wrong, there's not an ounce of jealousy towards these women. It more makes me wonder why men seem to prefer, in my opinon, women who look hyperfeminine and hypersexual.

It's been a belief of mine that men are generally interested in trans women because they project a female image that is extreme. A female image that generally cannot be mirrored by cisgendered females. The constant pursuit of femininity and beauty is a turn on for men. Now, this has remained a hypothesis of mine so I guess now I'd like it either confirmed or denied.


I know not all trans attracted men are equal so I wont try to say they are. but Here are my questions

A. do you find transsexuals attractive partly because of their constant pursuit of femininity? A pursuit often forgotten or laid aside from cisgendered women?

B. Would you date a girl like the one I described? A girl who is more unnatural than natural?

C. Do the standards of beauty held to black transsexuals echo the same standard you have on cisgendered women, if you are interested in both?

D. Do you think the standards of beauty held to or pursuedblack transsexuals, echo the standards of beauty constructed by cases like the "hot en tot venus" and the overall stereotypical hypersexualization of the black female body?



Now, i know im getting a little cerebral on you guys, but I know there's some smart 'bruthas' on this forum so let me know what you think I am curious

Wow, Im not the smartest man in the world but I'll try and answer to the best of my abilities so bare with me.

A: Yes but moreso because the physical femininty. The softness of the body and smells and other senses they envoke.

B: No, because no one wants to walk down the street with a "circus freak" (No disrespect to anybody in particular)

C: Yes only because Im a simple man. I like soft facial features on a dark skin woman.

D: hot en tot venus? Im confused. explain so I can answer.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Baartman

She was basically a woman who was captured in Africa who was put on exibit all across the world for her naturally "sexual" features. She's viewed as the tragic case where white men defined what made her sexual and then went and used those outlining things to overgeneralize the sexuality and sexual availability of a black woman based on her body.

Wow that is not sexy lmao. but.....

D: No I dont. Not even a lil bit.


I hope I sounded a lil bit intelligent on this one lol

Well it's not about her physically (as in reality she was pretty), but the ideas that were created by the "scientists" who viewed her.

ohhh. Well I feel like certain blacc transexuals place those ideals on themselves so in a way they echo, but in my views as in with most things, simplicity is the key. Be natural.

I dont remember who it was, but someone told me that i should get my ass pumped. Now, no man in my entire life (which unfortunately, there have been quite a few) has complained about my ass. But I wondered why that was projected onto me.

Because thats his silly (and I mean silly) opinion. I feel like ur ass is fine the way it is but once again. thats my opinion. Not everybody is gonna be happy with parts of your body but its about how u feel.

well, i love my ass and I think my ass is amazing, so i'm not worried

But I guess I started to ask myself "is this how black men think?". I dont know, i just find it strange that a large butt = more attractive. I don't quite understand that. I mean, to be honest, some of the girls i've seen men praise on here have very masculine faces and possibly slightly masculine bodies, but as long as their ass is like PADOW, they're the sexiest thing ever. I dunno, it just makes me wonder why these standards are put onto women when, in reality, cisgendered women dont -naturally- have those things.

A- feminity is part of it but I have limits. Anyone can be hyperfeminine but being a woman is more than how dainty you can be and girly and giggly. If youre too femme i get turned off. I find females just dont understand womanhood like i was raised to believe it was (something beyond how many babies u can birth, dicks u can suck, etc)

B- i could but i'd prefera natural appearance. A few people on this forum know of my current gf, and some would say shes over done it, some wouldnt. To me she found a good balance for her body type and looks damn good, naked or clothed (to me at least). Some girls get caught up in attaining a look not meant for their bodies ie the beyonce/barbie syndrome. Not every woman is gonna be 36-26-40. its all about balance and some just miss the bullseye.

C- A bit. I like nice legs, thighs, butts, and I dont mind a girl who sbigger rather than smaller, but i know some sexy skinny women and some sey big girls, some sexy in the middle. I have no set rules of the perfect woman, just preferences that can easily be overridden under the right circumstances.

D- I think black women have a different set of beauty rules then white women, hence why Hot en Taut Venus was such a spectacle to white people in her time. To us, curves and, for lack of a better term, meat is not only acceptable but sought after, where in many caucasian cultures thin is in. Black women, imo, carry weight better than most white women and ppull off the thick look easier, especially in the hip area, where white women just look better top heavy. Each culture has its own kind of distinguishing and appealing features and black women in america is leaning more to thick than anything else.

lovely response. I definitely agree with D.


I remember in one of my videos, some white girl told me i should loose weight. lol. It's interesting hearing all of these different standards of beauty. It makes for an interesting character study, I think.

There are most definitely different standards within race. I wonder if that has to do with the whole though that if she's big, she can cook or at least pay for people ot cook for her. I've seen a lot of scrawny guys with big women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittymatthews

lovely response. I definitely agree with D.


I remember in one of my videos, some white girl told me i should loose weight. lol. It's interesting hearing all of these different standards of beauty. It makes for an interesting character study, I think.

There are most definitely different standards within race. I wonder if that has to do with the whole though that if she's big, she can cook or at least pay for people ot cook for her. I've seen a lot of scrawny guys with big women.

---

well i think the latter point u made is semi accurate. When i see soemoen with size i think they can cook better (albeit unhealthier lol). Some people just have better metabolisms and genes.

THis is the internet so gawking over the unnatural is what it's for.

Meanwhile back to really my women tend revolve around a more traditional 34-26-38 measurement.

Since in my experience all that extra, extra ass and tits is overrated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittymatthews

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Baartman

She was basically a woman who was captured in Africa who was put on exibit all across the world for her naturally "sexual" features. She's viewed as the tragic case where white men defined what made her sexual and then went and used those outlining things to overgeneralize the sexuality and sexual availability of a black woman based on her body.

---

Better yet see "Medical Apartheid" by Harriet Washington for a more in depth take on the atrocious exploitation of this South African sista as well as black folk in general all in the name of "science". A startling and alarming read for sure.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...clqYhx5FbyeEM2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bxboy1984

D- I think black women have a different set of beauty rules then white women, hence why Hot en Taut Venus was such a spectacle to white people in her time. To us, curves and, for lack of a better term, meat is not only acceptable but sought after, where in many caucasian cultures thin is in. Black women, imo, carry weight better than most white women and ppull off the thick look easier, especially in the hip area, where white women just look better top heavy. Each culture has its own kind of distinguishing and appealing features and black women in america is leaning more to thick than anything else.

---

This might be controversial, but there is a theory of sexual selection that tries to explain why people (and animals in general) select each other by some set of traits. It supposedly helps explain racial differences between populations which were isolated geographically over long periods of time. The theory says that we select on certain features being a certain way, even though they confer no obvious advantage, and these partly define a standard of beauty which is an arbitrary component of the standard. (One component is fairly objective: traits like symmetry, health of the skin, posture, strength; but this is an arbitrary standard that selects on some irrelevant traits.) Take for example the nose. One culture may favor a bulbous nose as a standard of beauty. Being able to grow a bulbous nose demonstrates that the body has sufficient extra resources to "waste" them on such an extravagance. The same thing happens in the animal kingdom and provides the classic explanation for why male peacocks with elaborate (and wasteful) tails are favored by females. If the organism has enough biological resources to waste them on these arbitrary traits that are favored by the opposite sex, it demonstrates an underlying health and vigor. Over time, those features tend to remain in the population since the animals which possess them are more likely to pass on their genes. And so this may partly explain "exaggerated" features like huge buttocks and breasts, or even features we take for granted like dark skin versus light skin. Of course, the explanations are always more complex in the end. Like why is there transexuality (not at explained by this aspect of the theory).

ooooo all this darwinism is making me horny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kittymatthews

ooooo all this darwinism is making me horny.

---

That's funny. But knowledge (or the attempt at it) usually stimulates a different side of me from sexuality. Very different, but often quite satisfying.

You didn't take my bait. I was hinting (at the end) at a next topic. Perhaps you should start a thread on why there is transexuality, starting with your own thoughts on the subject. At least people like to reply to your threads !

We shouldn't question our own existence. We just are.