Trans men In bathhouses

[NWUSHorny]

3 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

No. But people who say "trans (men or women) do not belong in this space that I like" are.

I would have to partially disagree with this. Bathhouses and other fuck venues (both gay and straight) are activity centric, and those that either can't or don't want to participate in that activity aren't really welcome in those spaces. Fro instance, where I live cuddle parties are very popular in the gay community and there are venues specific to that activity, that I'm never going to visit because I have no interest in that activity. I do go to both of my local gay bathhouses regularly and avoid the many fetish theme events where I have learned fucking isn't the main focus or even particularly welcome at. My gripe is that the men that don't like to fuck do go to bathhouses and basically cockblock those of us who are into fucking even at events like Cumunion that are specifically intended for my favorite activity. 

Personally I don't go to Trans nights at the local bathhouses not because of the presence of FTM trans men, but because of the cross dressers that are there to pose. I personally don't mind the FTM trans present at other times, because they are there to actively participate, and even if I wasn't into them, my observation is that they don't act as cock blockers to those that aren't interested.

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

I would have to partially disagree with this. Bathhouses and other fuck venues (both gay and straight) are activity centric, and those that either can't or don't want to participate in that activity aren't really welcome in those spaces.

 

Last time I checked, trans men can suck and get fucked (in one more orifice than cis men), so they certainly can participate in most of activities, at least in certain roles. Why would a trans man (who can get fucked in the ass) be unwelcome when a cis man (who can also get fucked in the ass) IS welcome?

More to the point, who gets to decide who is "welcome" in those spaces? The owner of the space. If he wants to allow trans men every night of the week, or just every other Tuesday from 2 PM to 6 PM, that's his choice (within certain legal guidelines, depending on locality).

It sounds like what you MEAN is "I don't want them in those spaces." Which is fine - you're allowed to feel how you feel - but you don't get to dictate who's welcome and who's not.

4 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

 My gripe is that the men that don't like to fuck do go to bathhouses and basically cockblock those of us who are into fucking even at events like Cumunion that are specifically intended for my favorite activity. 

That's understandable, but (a) again, trans men CAN participate in fucking and (b) it's up to the event organizers to monitor and see whether people are participating within the event guidelines or not. If you want to fuck and there's another guy who wants to get fucked, or vice versa, I don't see how the presence of other people (including trans men) affects that. Unless, again, we're talking about a fucker or fuckee who is so bigoted he doesn't even want to have sex in the presence of a trans person, when he'd happily do so in the presence of other cis people.

4 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

I personally don't mind the FTM trans present at other times, because they are there to actively participate, and even if I wasn't into them, my observation is that they don't act as cock blockers to those that aren't interested.

I applaud you on this - not hat it's especially praiseworthy but in this part of your post, you make the point I've been trying to make. If any person (trans or not) is actively interfering with the activities going on, that's a matter for management to deal with, and most such places have policies to handle problem guests. If they're not interfering, then any objection to their presence is, by its very nature, bigotry.

[Kayne]

I have been all over on this issue. And I am often cast in the role of "closed minded bigot" because of my personal tastes and practices.

The issue has further resonance for me because I live in a state of involuntary transition and am unable to access the tools to keep me As Male As I am and wish to be. [ the long and short is that my Testosterone is being turned into Estrogen and i don't want it to]

I cannot say how many trans people have donned pitchforks and tor he's because I have stated that I will not Date/ Have sex with a transperson -Transmasc /Transfemme makes no difference to me. 

This is not to say I am against Trans people. Quite the contrary! It may be clichéd to say "I am not prejudiced against [insert group] because I have this friend. However I have been the person that several Transmen and Women have come out to, when they were learning to accept themselves.

With all the above being said, I am not aware of any man being able to deviate from what turns him on. If a man with a vag. is not your thing, you're not going to be super thrilled with mixing/ mingling with such a man in such an intimate setting as a bathhouse. Same for a woman with a cock.  However, Bathhouses cater to a large clientele. Somecare only hot for muscle, some are only into Senior Silver Dads Some people are into Bears, others into Chubs/SuperChubs, while Only Twinks will do for others. Thing is we all have to learn to co-exist. 

I'd personally prefer to spend my time with men that were born Male, identify as Male, that have penises ,testis and produce sperm. That's what makes my soldier stand. that's what I'd like to see when I pay to be in that venue

Unfortunately, while separate but equal gathering places of this type are the fantasy; Separate but equal anything is neither Separate nor Equal.  So I'll smile and politely decline invitations from patrons that don't do anything for me. 

 

[topblkmale]

16 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

 

Last time I checked, trans men can suck and get fucked (in one more orifice than cis men), so they certainly can participate in most of activities, at least in certain roles. Why would a trans man (who can get fucked in the ass) be unwelcome when a cis man (who can also get fucked in the ass) IS welcome?

 

vagina

[BootmanLA]

30 minutes ago, topblkmale said:

vagina

And your point?

Again, it boils down to "I don't want to be in a sexual space where X are". And that doesn't change simply because you - or anyone else - thinks there's a distinction between characteristics that can change and ones that can't.

If you don't want to have sex with a person who has a vagina, then don't. If you don't want to look at someone who has a vagina, don't. If you can't get an erection knowing that somewhere in the mass of spaces, rooms, hallways, and so forth that constitute a bathhouse there may be a person with a vagina, then maybe a bathhouse isn't the place for you.

And yes, there's no difference from someone saying "I don't want to fuck black guys and I don't want them around when I'm fucking." Or overweight men, or hairless men, or bald men, or whatever other characteristic one might choose to focus on.

[topblkmale]

1 hour ago, BootmanLA said:

And your point?

Then let's call it a straight bathhouse. 🤣

[drscorpio]

On 11/30/2023 at 5:27 AM, hungry_hole said:

I don't think so, especially in the environment of anonymous sex where the cock, the hard-on and the cum are at the centre of the excitement. We are interested in size, shape and how far does a cock shoot, a real one I mean.

I think you are letting your bottom sensibilities overrule your judgement here. 

Plenty of bottoms wear jocks and actively keep people from touching their cocks in public sex venues because some dom tops don't want their cocks to enter into the situation at all. I think a lot of other tops are not that interested in bottom cocks. I go out of my way to present as a bottom, and I have certainly had entire trips to the baths go by without anyone paying any attention to my cock. 

[ErosWired]

3 hours ago, topblkmale said:

vagina

Actually, a transman’s anus is just as useful a potential cunt as any cis man’s, and if he transitions so that he no longer has a vagina, his ass is still going to be a warm, wet hole.

Much of the sense of the conversation in this thread seems to me to presuppose that because a transman wants to transition out of a naturally female state, he must therefore want to Top. But there’s no reason why a transman in a gay venue shouldn’t be just likely as everyone else to be a guy who wants to bottom - that is, more likely than not.

There’s a whole set of cis assumptions at play here - an assumption that a female who says she’s actually a male will want to become anatomically male; that the transman wants to assume traditional heterosexual male roles; that the transman, as a male, is going to be attracted to women (because, the cis logic thinks, if the person is attracted to men, it makes more sense to be a woman - the fucking pool is much larger). Why, the thinking runs, would a transman choose to become a man just to be a gay man?

The answer, of course, is that he doesn’t become a gay man, he always was one. He just happened to get the wrong body when he started.

That’s why whether he gets fucked in the ass or the vagina is immaterial - the vagina isn’t what he is, it’s what he has. And after he transitions, an asscunt will be what he has for that purpose. Just like all the rest of us guys.

 I’ve occasionally wondered what it would be like if I had a vagina instead of a cock. I once saw a photo of a transman who hadn’t bottom-transitioned, and he was stunningly arousing (which, from me who doesn’t really notice appearance, is saying something). I didn’t realize at first that he had a vagina, and I did a double-take, because the guy was absolutely a guy. My next thought was “I wish I was like that.” Such possibilities. If I had that I would be sluttier by an order of magnitude, were that possible. But at the same time, I’m not sure I would change if I was offered the chance; my cock my be pointless for sex, but it’s mine, and I’m accustomed to it. Besides, I’ve invested a lot of time and effort into conditioning my ass into something that multiple men have told me is better pussy than any vagina, so why change?

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, topblkmale said:

Then let's call it a straight bathhouse. 🤣

Which gets back, apparently, to the notion that you don't consider trans men "men". Which, again, reeks of anti-trans bigotry.

[Neg4pozbaby]

On 11/29/2023 at 4:40 AM, Chubbytransguy said:

How do you feel about transgender men in places like bathhouses and male-only swinger’s clubs?

I have literally no issue so long as I can fuck raw. Still fucking a man, but raw is law and that’s non negotiable. 

[raw773]

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Which gets back, apparently, to the notion that you don't consider trans men "men". Which, again, reeks of anti-trans bigotry.

I think bigotry is the wrong word. The idea that "trans men are 'men'" is a pretty novel one, and not universal among gay men, let alone among society at large. It is a stretch to lob that word, "bigotry," at somebody who has trouble with this idea.

[ErosWired]

5 minutes ago, raw773 said:

I think bigotry is the wrong word. The idea that "trans men are 'men'" is a pretty novel one, and not universal among gay men, let alone among society at large. It is a stretch to lob that word, "bigotry," at somebody who has trouble with this idea.

Bigot is defined as: 

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. - especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group

It makes no reference to whether the people, ideas, etc. being disliked are otherwise universally accepted. Indeed, if a view is universally accepted, then by definition of universally, bigotry would not exist against it. But it does. Ask any transperson. There is no threshold for acceptance that a group or an idea has to reach before bigotry against it becomes bigotry. Even if society were to reach a point where transpeople were wholly accepted, a single individual could be bigoted toward them just the same as if he were a member of the cis majority bigoted toward them because they currently struggle to be understood.

I do, however, agree that there’s not much to be gained in throwing the word bigot at people, other than to make them even less likely to listen to you. A bigot does not think of himself as one; to him, his view is sensible. Helping him to see a different perspective is a better way to lead to acceptance.

[viking8x6]

8 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

Bigot is defined as: 

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. - especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group

It's notable here that the main definition and the "especially" definition here actually are different in a fundamentally important way. "strongly and unfairly dislikes" refers to an individual's emotions and internal dialogue. "hates or refuses to accept" refers to an individual's actions and public dialogue. The first principally harms only the individual having the thoughts. The second principally harms the members of the target group.

This is why it's important for people to work at making that distinction for their own prejudices (and we ALL have them, because that is part of human nature). The arc of the moral universe may tend toward justice, but it does so a lot more readily if we all pitch in.

 

[Close2MyBro]

3 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Bigot is defined as: 

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. - especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group

It makes no reference to whether the people, ideas, etc. being disliked are otherwise universally accepted.

 

It makes a HUGE difference. This is the difference between subjective an objective. This entire discussion is subjective, not objective, meaning that it is solely driven by opinion, not fact. To call someone a bigot because their opinion differs from yours is ridiculous, because you then would have to be a bigot yourself by the same measurement.

[BootmanLA]

42 minutes ago, Close2MyBro said:

It makes a HUGE difference. This is the difference between subjective an objective. This entire discussion is subjective, not objective, meaning that it is solely driven by opinion, not fact. To call someone a bigot because their opinion differs from yours is ridiculous, because you then would have to be a bigot yourself by the same measurement.

It's fine if your subjective opinion governs your own behavior, ie if you don't want to have sex with (choose one or more: trans men, white men, short men, small-cocked men, smooth men, whatever), then don't.

It's not fine when you want to use your subjective opinion to exclude (choose one or more: same list) from a public place simply because you don't want to have to see or interact with people from that list.

If the group you want to exclude poses some potential threat (say, "known muggers"), that might be rational. But there's no difference between "I don't want to go to a bathhouse where they let trans men play" and "I don't want to go to a restaurant where they let Black people eat." Neither one affects you, except to the extent that you may have to say "No thank you" to a trans person proposing play or "No thank you" to a Black person who wants to share your table (assuming that the trans-ness or Black-ness are the reasons you say no). And yes, both are bigotry.