Sunday, May 31, 2009

Dudes With Boobs

Yeah, it's a post about guys with boobs, as says the title. And no, it's not about gynecomastia. If you're curious, jump on in.

I always feel a little guilty and wrong by the fact that I get so turned on by the idea of men with breasts (a.k.a. actual female breasts, not manboobs). It's just rather difficult, given that they either don't exist on non-trans men, or they are hated body parts for transmen (and I hate to objectify trans bodies, especially focusing on a body part for which they want the least attention).

And yet, nonetheless, I am drawn to the idea of a guy with breasts, regardless of what he's got going on down below his belt buckle. Not a transgirl, but a guy. And sure, butch girls will do in a pinch, as will the rare non-top-surgery FtM who's okay with his chest (Ian Foxe of Trannywood Pictures fame comes to mind, and has discussed his chest and the not-so-kind reactions it's gotten here). But they're pretty rare, and a butch girl is a girl, after all, not a guy.

It does tend to make me think a bit critically when it comes to trans admiration/fetishization . . . the whole "shemale" phenomenon is a porn creation that rarely resembles real-life transwomen, and yet even the FtM equivalent in Buck Angel is not exactly the same, given the way testosterone changes one's genitals. Buck may bill himself as as a man with a pussy, but he isn't, not quite- he's a man with a transguy's vagina. And while estrogen does change the appearance and functioning of transwomen's penises, it's possible to present as fully female without the help of hormones- something a lot harder to do when one is FtM (i.e. no beard). I guess what I'm trying to say is that fetishizing transmen never feels like loving "dudes with vaginas"- it feels like a new attraction to transguy's front hole, in a way that enjoying T-girls in porn simply isn't. I don't know- I guess all I'm saying is that it seems a bit disappointing to me that when one of the joys of trans-admiration is beautiful gender-bending, boundary-crossing bodies, that there aren't really any guys with boobs.

I feel like the fictional character in this episode of Nip/Tuck- her husband got breast implants for a book deal and later she found she "couldn't keep her hands off them". I don't exactly get hot over J.K. Simmons, but I can't help but sympathize. A man with breasts is just a sexy idea for me.

The silliest part of this whole post is that what actually got me thinking of it was an episode of American Dad, of all things- where the boys took some steroids that made them grow some rather fabulous cartoon ta-tas:

Silly, eh? But it's true, and I have been wanting to write a blog for a while about how I lust after a sort of genderbending that doesn't really exist, so it gave me the perfect reminder and prompt.

Am I alone? Any other girls (or guys) ever think a boy with some blouse bunnies might be kind of hot?
Click here to read the rest!

I'm A Winner!

Did I happen to mention THAT I WON THE SEXTOYS.COM CONTEST? (Oh yes, that totally warranted all caps).

Well, not really. I mean, I haven't (yet?) won the $1,000 shopping spree that would have 26 amazing sex toys delivered to my door free of charge- that drawing will happen on Friday, June 12, 2009. But I am super thrilled to say that I won in the Sexiest List for Women contest, and got the Acute Midnight Purple Dildo as my prize!

I was completely surprised when I got the e-mail, because I have terrible luck and never win anything- I was almost upset that I'd won a sex toy, because I couldn't just run around blurting about my luck to everybody!

When I plucked the lil' feller out of his box, I was just the teensiest bit disappointed- it is certainly acute, as in tiny. I'm used to my old standby, the G-Force, which comes in at roughly the same length as my forearm (not all of that meant for insertion, of course). No bells and whistles to make up for Acute's lack of length and girth. Oh, and it was purple- a color far too prevalent in sex toys, given how unsexy it is.

And then I got the wild idea to use it anally (my last anal adventure had been with the G-Force and left me unwilling to come back for more, for some reason or another). And, success! The Acute quickly earned my respect and now I'm all happy and thrilled again to have won something that I'll be putting to good use on a regular basis. And heck, the purple even seems kind of pretty now, all dark and sheeny with black swirlies.

So, I'm a winner! And, as much as it pains me to say it, you still can be, too. You can still participate in the contest up until Friday, the 5th of June, so if you haven't done it yet, scurry to it, and vie with me to be the glorious winner- at least if you win it, I'll still have a pretty nice consolation prize. :)
Click here to read the rest!

Saturday, May 30, 2009

What Does It Mean To Be Pansexual?

Lately I've been struggling with that exact question. What does it mean to be pansexual? Ignoring the omnipresent stupid joke thrown in there ("Someone who likes to do it with pots and pans?"), the answers are usually very similar- something about liking many genders, more than the male/female duo covered by bisexuality. And I agree with that definition.

And yet, almost every time I read someone's description of pansexuality, I cringe, as my eyes end up alighting on the all-too-common phrase "gender-blind".

I'll come right out and say it- I take issue with the idea of pansexuality as a state of being gender-blind. If anything, as a pansexual, I feel that I am the complete opposite of blind when it comes to my consideration of the sexual attractiveness of an individual. Gender matters to me- I am completely and utterly passionate about it, and it's one of many things that I respond to in another person. I simply cannot say that I am apathetic about gender, that I don't care if my lover is male or female or trans or two-spirited or third-gender or genderqueer. Of course I care, and it gets me hot to know that he/she/ze is any of those things. I get hot over their bodies. I get hot about their gender identities and gender expression. And that is why I simply find it hard to align myself with the label of "pansexual" when people keep on tossing terms like "gender-blind" around. I always feel like I need to add these caveats in order to differentiate myself and to explain.

But it's more than just this personal dissonance. I feel slightly betrayed by what "gender-blind" really means, in a political sense. I dislike this concept of pansexuality because it completely erases the desirability of trans/intersex bodies- especially as a "normal" desirability that is not part of, say, the strong T-girl fetish of a trannychaser. This "gender-blind" definition removes the possibility that someone could simply find trans bodies to be sexy BECAUSE they are trans, and instead makes it out to be an exception to the rule, laden with words like "in spite of". Why, one definition reads thus: "The ones who fall in love with people, regardless of gender, even transsexuals.". Even transsexuals. The disgust/contempt for transpeople drips off of that statement (even though I believe its writer to actually have good intentions). It's such a pervasive attitude, that nobody in their right mind could ever see a trans body as hot. It's a cissexist (is that a real term? If not, I'm totally coining it!) stance that firmly puts transpeople "in their place" by othering them.

And all that in a sexual orientation that is supposed to remedy the marginalization of those outside the gender binary!

But of course it is easy to want to applaud for pansexuality. It plays to the old and well-worn script of the accepting lover, the one we all want for ourselves. On the revelation of his/her/hir trans status, the accepting lover decides he/she/ze can "handle it". The phrases "I still love you for you.", "I love you in spite of . . ." and "I love you regardless." are thrown about and everybody feels good and happy and warm. We like it because pansexuality is the ultimate comfort- that someone could love you in spite of your flaws, whether that flaw is the penis you were born with but want to get rid of, or the rolls of fat on your body, or the skin you always worry is too dark to be sexy. It feels good to have that reassurance, the consolation of unconditional love.

The only problem with this is that it completely buys into the status quo. It subverts nothing, and in fact reinforces these ideas that you can only be truly sexy if you are cisgender, thin, white, etc.. What it says is "You aren't sexy, but I love you anyways." And maybe it's just me, but I know that I'd be more than a little upset if someone told me they loved me "in spite of" something about me that wasn't negative. I'm waiting for a new script- the one where the robe drops and the response is "You are so fucking sexy."- not "I think I can learn to love you."

The idea that pansexuality is somehow better than other orientations is very telling in this regard. It reminds me of Stephen Colbert's eponymous character's bragging claim that he doesn't see race. I can even hear the conversation in my head now: "Oooh, pansexual. How wonderful for you- how amazing that you are able to be so egalitarian, so open-minded, to not even see gender!". (Or, as I read on a Deviant Art blog: "I so badly WANT to be a pansexual. It's all I believe in, all anybody espouses who's enlightened!"). But in order to be enlightened, you have to have overcome all those old preconceived ways of thinking. It sounds like a compliment. It even sounds like it's trans-friendly, but it's not. It describes a world where trans bodies can never be desirable naturally, but have to be the result of some sort of monumental mental gymnastics. Not to mention that it is highly offensive to accepted understandings of sexuality. Enlightenment implies choice, as if you simply work at it long and hard enough, you can get an erection for a transguy. For most of us, who feel our sexuality was not something chosen, the belief that pansexuality is superior is horrible- setting anybody not pansexual up for failure because they cannot "get over" their transphobia and start liking gender-variant bodies. In every way possible, the idea of pansexuality as gender-blind and enlightened purports to be trans-friendly while in reality being quite transphobic and upholding the status quo.

And don't get me wrong- I'm not trying to say that pansexuality is the sort of political identity people take on only in order to subvert the status quo. I'm wary of anybody who says that any sexual orientation has some ulterior goal/motivation other than sex and love, in fact. I am most certain that there are pansexuals out there who do feel that the gender-blind definition of pansexuality fits them perfectly. Certainly there are even bisexuals who feel that way (dealing solely with the two mainstream genders, of course). I'm not saying that the definition isn't true, but merely that it's limiting, and that its implications subtly influence our understanding of trans people and, as I'll explain below- of sex.

I'm tired of being told that pansexuals fall in love with personalities and with people, rather than fall in lust with bodies and genders. In no other definition of sexuality does the word "love" pop up so frequently. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, even asexuality, all rely on words like "attraction" when we define them, which implies a range of feelings (aesthetics, romance, etc.) but most importantly, sex. Pansexuality, however, has been whitewashed of its sex, often in a sex-negative way.

I can hear it yet again- that admiring voice saying "Oooh, pansexual- gender-blind, so that you fall in love with personalities and not bodies! How wonderfully enlightened! How incredible! To not be so focused on such a base thing like sex, but to truly love people for who they are!"

Except that I am sexual. Oooh boy, am I sexual. When I am lying in bed with one hand stuffed into my panties and a fantasy playing on the back of my eyelids, I am not watching a romance where I fall in love with a character "regardless of gender" and we finally consummate our love. No, my fantasies feature bodies, beautiful bodies doing dirty, sexual things. I often see individuals and I want to fuck them, simple as that. No needing to know them. But pansexuality does not offer me that option. Apparently casual sex for the pansexual is out of the question, because we fall in love with people, not anonymous bodies in heat like straight and gay and bisexual people sometimes do.

Why the hypocrisy? Why is it widely understood that gay people and straight people feel lust based on a whole complex combination of aspects, with sexual attraction as the primary one, but pansexuals aren't allowed the same? Does it all come creeping back to the aforementioned problem with trans bodies, that of course it cannot be primarily or evenly wholly sexual, because nobody would ever be able to feel attraction for a transperson without being perfect in every other way, to make up for their "deficiency"? And what's with the glowing discussions of pansexuality as enlightened for seeing personality before sex? I don't know . . . it scares me, as an intensely sexual being, to be told that I am less moral because I get the desire to fuck somebody based on the physical- regardless of whether I follow through with that or not. It makes me worry that we are only thinly veiling our real deep-seated issues with sex, our view that it is something dirty and perverse and wrong, only validated by love and "nobler intentions" than getting your rocks off.

I have brought this topic up in conversation before and have been shot down and dismissed as nitpicking, but I just don't think that's true. Every time somebody says that pansexuality is about loving people regardless of their gender, it whittles away at the concept that gender-variant/trans/intersex bodies can be sexually desirable. Every time pansexuality is declared to be about love first and sex later, it implies that we have made a choice to put sex aside in order to be more enlightened. Every time that pansexuality is lauded over other orientations, it sends out a sex-negative message that sexual desire is base, lewd, something dirty to be sneered at and looked down upon compared to "pure" romantic love.

And I'm not sure I want to be a part of these implicit messages. So what am I left with? How can I construe how I feel without having to direct everybody to my blog? I picked up "pansexual" as a label for myself years back when I first heard it and breathed a sigh of relief, that I could condense a paragraph of sexual attractions into one neat little word. But that has no longer become the case, and I wonder if I should be making myself a new label, or perhaps fighting for an expanded, more nuanced understanding of pansexuality. All I can say is that I'm utterly confused on where I stand, and tired of correcting people, tired of hearing the words "gender-blind" and "personality". My sexuality has never been easy, but lately it's gotten to the point where I can no longer stand by the "P" word. What's a girl who wants to fuck all genders to do?
Click here to read the rest!

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

My Wishlist

I've known about for a while, but they seriously shocked me recently with their offer of a $1,000 shopping spree giveaway (plus other sundry prizes) for anybody who blogs a $1,000 wishlist of their awesome products. How could I resist? So, without further ado, here's me throwing my hat into the ring with fingers crossed! (And, though the selfish chick inside of me is telling me to shut up and keep our odds good, if you have a blog or forum where you can post, you should enter, too- the rules spell it all out).

1) Bwarm Soy Massage Candle Amber ($27.89). Why I want it: I think this is the coolest innovation I've heard of- you get a romantic scented candle to set the mood, the fun of dripping wax onto your lover, and massage oil all in one product!

2) Fukuoku Five Finger Massage Glove ($58.99). Why I want it: I love using my hands for clitoral stimulation (hence the surprising lack of clitoral vibes on this list), so it seems like the Fukuoku glove is just made for me- vibrating fingertips, without the hassle of big, intrusive finger attachments (especially ones that might not fit chubby fingers)!

3) Lick-A-Lot-A-Puss Restraints ($18.19). Why I want it: I am very curious as to how, exactly, this product actually works (leather grippers?), but if it does, it would be immensely helpful in both cunnilingus and masturbation, since my lips tend to prefer staying shut when I want them spread wide open.

4) Anal Mini Tongue Vibrator ($51.49). Why I want it: I am constantly on the lookout for anal vibrators that do something less like buzzing and more like what your lover's skilled fingers/tongue do, and this toy fits the bill, swivelling round to tease and open you up, not just shake inside your tush.

5) Liquid Silk Personal Lubricant 250 ml ($26.19). Why I want it: I keep on hearing wonderful things about Liquid Silk (no sticky residue!), but one of the coolest thing about it is that it is one of the few lubes on with that great pump dispenser, so you don't have to make your bottle slippery in trying to get some more!

6) PulsaBath (Purple) ($17.49). Why I want it: Jerking off in the tub is difficult for me at the best of times (the water washes away any natural lubrication), but I think this toy could fix that- a soft, spongy waterpoof vibrator that I could comfortably hold in place with my thighs for some hands-free stimulation, perhaps while reading an erotic book . . .

7) Inflatable Black Stud ($25.89). Why I want it: I always dread the idea of purchasing a new, bigger toy, fearing that it'll end up being too big for me and a waste of money- but this toy easily fixes that, by letting you pump it to new sizes while inside you.

8) Triple Spoiler Blue ($30.89). Why I want it: This toy is so cool to me simply because it's really three toys in one- beads and a large and slender dildo- that would easily allow me to switch between sensations and sizes without digging through the toy box, enjoy switching between anal and vaginal penetration without juggling toys or using condoms, and maybe even adding in some double penetration action, if I'm so inclined!

9) Heart Shape Breast Massager ($32.19). Why I want it: Usually, anything that vibrates on the nipples is long, tubular, and bulky (i.e. unattractive), not to mention pinchy-clampy; these caught my eye not only because they're *so* pretty (like cute pink pasties), but because they claim to provide less of an "Ouch!" feeling, and more of a "Oooh." one.

10) Nexus Gyro Purple Male Prostate Massager ($103.99). Why I want it: I have a secret . . . I often co-opt men's prostate toys for vaginal fun (really, the parts are all pretty analogous anyways), and this one looks stupendous, with its rock-back-and-forth-for-extra-stimulation possibilities.

11) Sassy Bendi Pacifier Blue Butt Plug ($14.89). Why I want it: Quite frankly, I just love the way this toy looks (what a pretty blue!) and how I imagine it'd feel as I walked around doing daily chores wearing it, all soft and bendable for my delicate booty.

12) Dildo Boro Glass Sleek Wand Clear Pink ($45.49). Why I want it: I've long wanted a glass dildo (for its heaviness, slickness, and ability for temperature play), and this one has the added benefit of being slightly curved (great for both easier use on the ol' wrists, as well as hitting those special spots inside), having a G-spot stimulating head and some bloops on the other end for a different feel.

13) Brand Spankin' Toy Cleaner 4 oz. ($12.19). Why I want it: I am often too lazy to get out of bed post-orgasm to clean my toys, and I imagine this spray would help me be a lot more hygienic!

14) Black Velvet 6.5 Inch Curved Dildo ($21.49). Why I want it: First off, I can't believe there are four pretty black waterpoof vibrators for $20, and secondly, I am really intrigued by the soft Velvet Touch material it's made out of- sounds luxurious and like something I definitely want to rub all over myself (not something I'm a fan of doing with my silicone dildos, for sure).

15) Weighted Orgasm Balls- Metallic ($18.89). Why I want them: Simple, elegant, weighted Ben Wa balls always make me feel like I'm undertaking some sort of sexy ancient Chinese ritual . . . while exercising my vaginal muscles!

16) Feeldoe More Double Ended Dong ($122.99). Why I want it: The Feeldoe has always been at the top of my list for things to try, because I hate messing with harnesses and shudder at the idea of those ugly, long, floppy "double headers".

17) Eyelash Spike Goggles ($53.89). Why I want them: I have never seen a blindfold that is hard and looks like a pair of goggles, and all of the sudden I'm wondering why, because these look freakin' badass, all kinky and steampunk rolled into one.

18) Platinum Jack Rabbit Gold ($69.89). Why I want it: It's got 7 functions, 6 speeds, and oh, did I mention that it's gold?

19) Japanese Bondage Rope Black ($16.19). Why I want it: I love the fact that it's long (because who can do any decent ties with ten feet?) and that it comes with a knot instruction brochure for those of us who might be beginners.

20) Silicone Flexi-Power Rod ($33.49). Why I want it: I think flexibility is really important in anal toys- not only because they minimize the chance of damage, but also because it sucks to have to contort yourself into weird positions just to masturbate, and I imagine I could have tons of fun with this one while even on my back (hard to do with a straight, rigid toy!).

21) Maximus Personal Lubricant 250 Ml ($26.19). Why I want it: Maximus is pretty much Liquid Silk for butt sex, and it has that aforementioned awesome pump dispenser that I love so much.

22) Thigh Harness Strap-On Harness ($25.89). Why I want it: Ever since I saw this used in the porn flick "Coming Home", I've wanted it- I mean, how cool is this nifty little device that lets you fuck someone with your thigh?

23) Pink Dildo W/ Suction Cup 8 Inches ($32.19). Why I want it: Suction cup dildos rock- you can stick 'em anywhere and enjoy hands-free fucking, not to mention that the pink color of this one makes me feel all nostalgic about my first dildo.

24) Glow In The Dark Kit ($22.19). Why I want it: Me + a pitch-black room + maybe a bit of alcohol + these cool glow-in-the-dark toys + mirror = trippy fun (also cool is the fact that there are two sleeves, which diversifies my sex toys and makes them all potentially glow-in-the-dark!).

25) Wet Look Lingerie Soft Sexy Gloves ($30.49). Why I want them: No big explanation here- they simply look fucking sexy.

26) Tantus Silicone Echo Purple ($50.49). Why I want it: This is the perfect simple silicone dildo to use with my thigh harness!

And that leaves me with a total of $990.04! Here's hoping I win!
Click here to read the rest!

Friday, May 1, 2009

Pretty Pictures

Too tired to write a real blog, but not too tired to post some eye candy!

The lovely Mena Suvari, looking particularly beautiful in her shorn hair and awesome tattoo. Also, she's a feminist, which totally makes her even sexier in my eyes.
Click here to read the rest!