![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 60 to 84 of 158. Go back in thread:
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Re: Sexuality With Reference to Gender, posted by kaleidoscope on March 19, 2007, at 17:31:50
>.....but Q, if he had a vagina, he wouldn't be a man
Or would he, if in every other aspect he had the appearance of a man? Are you saying gender is purely an issue of genital tissue?
>and I thought you were attracted to men.
Yup.
> If you want a vagina, why not have sex with a woman?
Because she wouldn't be a man, and therefore I would find her sexually repellent. I don't find a vagina particularly attractive, it just so happens it fits my genitals properly making sex easier. I don't find the penis particularly attractive on a man, it's his buttocks and shoulders that I find most erotic. I find the vagina equally as erotic as the penis with all its erogenous folds of flesh etc. Therefore it would make little difference to me if men were to have vaginas. Allow if you will that gender had evolved the other way around, with women having the penis and men having the vagina. Would the genital tissue make all the difference to you? For example, do you find 'shemales' attractive simply because they have a penis? I don't because I still perceive them as women despite their anomalous appendages. So in reverse, I think I would still find a 'man' attractive if he had a vagina. This also has the advantage of allowing procreation between two homosexuals. I believe an oversight has been made in this regard by God/'mother nature'/ various creator beings, and I would urge them to give serious attention to my blueprints listed earlier.
>I am a little confused by this.
That is normal. It has a lot to do with the photo I found. After seeing that it made me question what it is that attracts me to my own sex, and I had to conclude it wasn't the gonads, it's something else - some hard to pin-down-and-examine essence of man that I often find lacking in myself and fellow homosexuals.
Q
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Re: Quintal's Final Solution, to the Gender Question » Quintal, posted by kaleidoscope on March 19, 2007, at 17:36:05
>So Q, you basically want a partner who is both male and female all in one? How novel.
I am comfortable playing both male and female roles in the sexual act (so long as the man has a vagina when I am taking the dominant, penetrative role), though the female feels more appropriate relative to my attraction to men (i.e. passive, submissive, yielding to penetration), but since I'm stuck with male genitalia for this life cycle, I would realistically have to seek a being that was overtly male yet endowed with a vaginal opening as a mate. I like the idea of 'Psychosexual Hermaphroditism', an obsolete diagnostic category that I think is more descriptive of the idiosyncrasies of my sexuality than the simple 'Homosexual'.
Q
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » FredPotter, posted by kaleidoscope on March 19, 2007, at 17:33:39
>You make some very good points, especially about the way men are being humiliated.
I agree, but don't you think this is simply a reversal of the roles (though women always claimed they would have more sense than to indulge in the silly behaviours of men)? Man seems to have taken pleasure in humiliating woman for a great deal of time, so it is perhaps expected that woman would do the same when she came to dominate?
Q
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:36
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » kaleidoscope, posted by Quintal on March 19, 2007, at 20:11:49
Google Dr. Bob Diedre she sounds like the same needs as you. But seriously don't you see something wrong with this? There are cousellors that deal in gender identification. Maybe you would be happier as a female? But counselling could help you figure out what is going on. Love Phillipa
Posted by FredPotter on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:37
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » kaleidoscope, posted by Quintal on March 19, 2007, at 20:11:49
yes pendulums swing before they finally, if ever, settle somewhere sensible. And there's a lot of compensation to be made to women by men.
I agree with your other point. Gonads don't have all that much to do with sexual attraction as they all turn out almost identical anyway. As someone once said, " the trouble with oral sex is the view"
Posted by Phillipa on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:37
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » Quintal, posted by FredPotter on March 19, 2007, at 21:17:37
Fred you're funny they just swing back and forth and look ridiculous. I always say mooo looks like cow the underside. Love Phillipa maybe tie a bell around something down there like the cows in Switzerland all have different bells?
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:37
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » Quintal, posted by Phillipa on March 19, 2007, at 21:16:38
>But seriously don't you see something wrong with this?
Well yes and no. I don't see it as any greater problem than homosexuality (in fact it wouldn't surprise me to find something similar going on in the subterranean layers of most gay men's psyche - I believe that's where the term 'Psychosexual Hermaphroditism' originated from, but since homosexuality is no longer pathological we don't usually go digging there in therapy anymore).
I'm not confused about my gender, rather I think I've peeled a whole layer of psychic flesh away and caught a glimpse of the inner workings. Just thinking outside the box as Declan suggested. I have no problem with being in a male-male relationship. It's just seeing a photo of that intersexed person made me realize I'd probably be happiest (in theory) as a hermaphrodite, so I could both penetrate and be penetrated as I desired. I wouldn't be any happier as a female because my male part of my psyche would probably start longing for a male body to act out its fantasies, though I'm slightly effemme in a male body I'd seem a little too butch in a female body and neither would be wholly satisfying. So I reckon the term psychosexual hermaphrodite fits the bill. An affinity for both sexes but not bisexual. As I've said before, I'm very comfortable with this. I wouldn't want to be any other way because it's allowed me to see the world from perspectives I might never have been able to see otherwise.
I thought it might make an interesting discussion and so it has.
Q
Posted by elanor roosevelt on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:37
In reply to Re: Homosexuality is an 'adjustment disorder' » Quintal, posted by yxibow on March 16, 2007, at 1:37:28
heterosexuality as the "norm" is a social construct
it's conveniently repressive
it is homophobia
affecion and erotic notions are not naturally gender-based
homophobics think it should be "cured"
don't worry homosexuality is here to stay
Posted by FredPotter on March 24, 2007, at 22:46:37
In reply to heterosexuality: a social construct, posted by elanor roosevelt on March 19, 2007, at 22:10:23
don't worry about things like this. Just take an SSRI or MAOI. That'll stop all this sex nonsense
Posted by Ken Blades on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:48
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » Phillipa, posted by Quintal on March 19, 2007, at 21:59:38
Not to tell you how to run your life Q....
But maybe you'd be happier if you skipped
all the self-analysis and introspection
and just go out and LIVE.Ken
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:48
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » Quintal, posted by Ken Blades on March 20, 2007, at 9:26:08
Would it make you feel more comfortable if I did?
Q
Posted by one woman cine on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:48
In reply to heterosexuality: a social construct, posted by elanor roosevelt on March 19, 2007, at 22:10:23
Posted by kaleidoscope on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:48
In reply to Re: Sexuality With Reference to Gender » kaleidoscope, posted by Quintal on March 19, 2007, at 19:26:56
Hi Q
>Or would he, if in every other aspect he had the appearance of a man? Are you saying gender is purely an issue of genital tissue?
No, but not many men have vaginas. It is, after all, a characteristic that one normally associates with women ;)
>Allow if you will that gender had evolved the other way around, with women having the penis and men having the vagina. Would the genital tissue make all the difference to you?
I have no idea :)
>some hard-to-pin-down-and-examine essence of man that I often find lacking in myself and fellow homosexuals
I know what you mean there. There's something about hetero men that is more attractive - nice hetero men that is. Gay men are usually unattractive to me.
>For example, do you find 'shemales' attractive simply because they have a penis? I don't because I still perceive them as women despite their anomalous appendages.
......but a she-male is a man with breast implants and make-up etc. I would perceive a she-male as being a man, not as a woman. I don't find she-males attractive though, although they are interesting.
>It has a lot to do with the photo I found
The one you once emailed me? It was certainly interesting but would probably be a lot more shocking in real life that it was in the picture.
Overall, I'm hoping to meet a nice friendly young man........definitely not a man with a vagina :D
K
Posted by kaleidoscope on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:48
In reply to Psychosexual Hermaphroditism » kaleidoscope, posted by Quintal on March 19, 2007, at 20:05:49
Hi Q
>am comfortable playing both male and female roles in the sexual act
I never think of sex between men as involving male and female roles. Since both participants are men, I think of both roles as being male.
K
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:48
In reply to heterosexuality: a social construct, posted by elanor roosevelt on March 19, 2007, at 22:10:23
>heterosexuality as the "norm" is a social construct
It's also a statistical fact that most people are heterosexual, for what that's worth.
>it's conveniently repressive, it is homophobia
That most people are attracted to the opposite sex? I always thought it was a natural instinct.
>don't worry homosexuality is here to stay
I would imagine so.
Q
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:48
In reply to Re: Sexuality With Reference to Gender » Quintal, posted by kaleidoscope on March 20, 2007, at 14:20:29
>No, but not many men have vaginas. It is, after all, a characteristic that one normally associates with women ;)
Actually I normally associate breasts, wide hips and smooth, delicate features with women since I rarely see their vaginas. The gonads are (perhaps paradoxically) fairly gender neutral to me when I explore the matter more deeply.
>......but a she-male is a man with breast implants and make-up etc. I would perceive a she-male as being a man, not as a woman.
Well the breast implants, make-up, hour-glass hips etc. would be signalling 'female' to the gender detector in my mind, despite the penis. I wonder who they are aimed at, it's not gay men is it? I think most of their admirers are men who 'identify themselves' as heterosexual. FredPotter et al, what is your position on 'shemales'?
I wonder what lesbians make of them? Are there any free thinking lesbians around here? Could you imagine yourself having sex with a 'shemale'? Do they attract you, do they repulse you?
>I know what you mean there. There's something about hetero men that is more attractive - nice hetero men that is. Gay men are usually unattractive to me.
Yup, and therein I think lies a lot of frustration and dissatisfaction for gay men.
Q
Posted by Declan on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:48
In reply to Re: Sexuality With Reference to Gender » kaleidoscope, posted by Quintal on March 20, 2007, at 14:44:03
O my goodness.
Posted by kaleidoscope on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:48
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » kaleidoscope, posted by Quintal on March 19, 2007, at 20:11:49
>I agree, but don't you think this is simply a reversal of the roles (though women always claimed they would have more sense than to indulge in the silly behaviours of men)?
Yes, I suppose so.......but two wrongs don't make a right. Please excuse the cliche.
K
Posted by kaleidoscope on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:49
In reply to Declan's position on she-males » Quintal, posted by Declan on March 20, 2007, at 14:49:04
That's a very cute position to have Dec :)
I assume you prefer more natural men without breast implants?
K
Posted by kaleidoscope on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:49
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent? » FredPotter, posted by Phillipa on March 19, 2007, at 21:47:42
>Fred you're funny they just swing back and forth and look ridiculous. I always say mooo looks like cow the underside. Love Phillipa maybe tie a bell around something down there like the cows in Switzerland all have different bells?
Phillipa I'm lost!
Ed xx
Posted by kaleidoscope on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:49
In reply to Re: heterosexuality: a social construct, posted by FredPotter on March 19, 2007, at 22:27:40
>don't worry about things like this. Just take an SSRI or MAOI. That'll stop all this sex nonsense
Good point Fred.........just realised I haven't had a sexual thought all day.
K
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:49
In reply to Re: heterosexuality: a social construct » FredPotter, posted by kaleidoscope on March 20, 2007, at 14:57:37
You could try tianeptine, or did that fail?
Q
Posted by Declan on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:49
In reply to Re: Declan's position on she-males » Declan, posted by kaleidoscope on March 20, 2007, at 14:53:19
I was just impressed that my opinion on this unusual subject might be of any interest to anyone.
Naturally (I guess) I think she-males are cool....but I kinda disagree with the implants.
Posted by Quintal on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:49
In reply to Re: Where did this post go off on such a tangent?, posted by kaleidoscope on March 20, 2007, at 14:50:39
>Yes, I suppose so.......but two wrongs don't make a right. Please excuse the cliche.
I suppose what I'm saying is that it's almost like a force, a role, or a 'spirit' that dominant people tend to adopt, so until we all become well-behaved morally conscious beings there will be people behaving like that. The sex of the dominant person seems to make no difference, hence 'ladettes', although they may be considered even more vicious than their male counterparts by some.
Q
Posted by kaleidoscope on March 24, 2007, at 22:50:49
In reply to Quintal's Final Solution, to the Gender Question, posted by Quintal on March 18, 2007, at 0:50:57
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p46/Serepham/HermDraw2.jpg
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p46/Serepham/HermDrawFront.jpgQ, I don't like the idea of having one testis on each side of the vagina. Balls are pretty cool, let's not split them up!
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.