![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatDidn't much like the last post so deleted it. Have been wrestling with what to write in this thing lately. Find that I have lj writer's block. Or just overly self-conscious all of a sudden. (shrugs). So what do I do, I write the below and I keep it unlocked.
Thought about writing a post on Aeryn/Crichton relationship - which has got to be the best romantic relationship I've seen on tv. Sure it has its problems (tv after all) but, all in all, it works. And breaks/subverts a lot of tv rules in the process. The unwritten rule that the leads can't get together until the end of the series or sleep together. They not only sleep together in the first season, they comment on it, and it furthers their relationship. They also sleep together in the third, and fourth seasons. Kiss quite a bit in the second season. Their relationship is based less on adolescent yearning to have sex (I want to, but we shouldn't trope) and more on the cultural differences between them. Also, there's the gender role reversal - in this relationship, Crichton (the male lead) is in the traditional "female" role. He's weaker than she is physically, and more emotional, more vulnerable. She's a better pilot and warrior. She's also more contained. He constantly needs to say I love you, constantly needs to talk about it, and is constantly gabbing, she says very little. All the gender stereotypes are reversed. Also Aeryn is the one that comes from a paternalistic world, she is used to rules and order, and an endzone, while Crichton looks outside the box. But the show doesn't stop there - it does what most tv shows don't do, it allows its characters to remember what happens to them and to change. Aeryn becomes less emotionally contained, more vulnerable, and compassionate as the series rolls forward, while Crichton becomes more contained, less compassionate, and tougher. He goes from a character who would never pick up a weapon, to a character who sleeps with a pulse pistol and names it Winona, it never leaves his side. Aeryn goes from a character that shoots first and asks questions later, who will hit you to get the job done, to someone who prefers a more peaceful approach. She even accuses Crichton at one point of being paranoid in regards to Scorpius, while just a season before she was the one who couldn't trust him or anyone.
The only other TV show I've seen that played with this type of role reversal may have been Buffy the Vampire Slayer - with Spike and Buffy, and Xander with well everyone. But B/S never quite gets to the point that Aeryn/John do. We get distracted by the sexual violence, which unfortunately is a huge trope in urban gothic fantasy featuring vampires (if you hate sexual violence, don't watch or read stories about vampires and werewolves - both are metaphors for it). Say what you will about Farscape - but it doesn't really have sexual violence - except against Crichton, who is basically the most tortured protagonist of all time. Another bit about Farscape? They actually address the whole bit about Protagonist Privilege and how Americans think they can trump everyone else without blinking. I've rarely seen tv shows address this as directly as Farscape does. It does it in several episodes - including the final three hour movie Peacekeeper Wars. Crichton more or less admits that the power he has, he has no right to, no one does, and what he does is inherently wrong. With the best of intentions, he has become little more than an inter-galatic terrorist. And when he tries to go home, he is horrified by the American propaganda machine and the pressure to give the weapons he has discovered to one country to use against others. No matter where he goes, he can't escape violence, he can't escape warfare.
Thought also about doing the Feminist Guide to TV, but this idea is chock-full of potential fail. First, not everyone defines feminism in the same way. Second, people don't particularly like other people telling them what tv shows are politically correct to watch. (I'll watch the bloody Bachelor if I want to, thank you very much (I don't, personally for a lot of reasons I will not bore you with.))
At any rate, I will list the tv shows that I am watching at the moment or have recently watched or loved that I consider Feminist. If a show you happen to love is not on this list and you know I watch it - it does not necessarily mean I don't think it is Feminist, I may have just forgotten its existence or haven't watched it recently so feel ill-qualified to state so. I may look like a walking television encyclopedia, but I'm really not - honest.
Before I do the list of Feminist TV Shows, will state that my definition of Feminism is equal rights for both genders, where women and men are treated equally. Both are villians and heroes. The TV show doesn't necessarily have to pass the Bechdel Test to be Feminist, if it does pass the test - I'll indicate it. Bechdel Test is basically when female characters talk to other female characters about things other than men, and there is more than one female character in the cast.
Feminist TV Shows - that I can think of and have recently watched within last two years.
*Rizzoli & Isles (passes Bechdel Test)
* The Closer
* In Plain Sight (passes Bechdel Test)
* The Good Wife (passes Bechdel Test)
* True Blood (passes Bechdel Test)
* Damages (passes Bechdel Test)
* Farscape (passes Bechdel Test)
* Buffy the Vampire Slayer (passes Bechdel Test)
* Vampire Diaries (passes Bechdel Test)
* Gossip Girl (passes Bechdel Test)
* Mad Men
* Dexter
* Brothers & Sisters (passes Bechdel Test)
* Grey's Anatomy (passes Bechdel Test)
* Doctor Who
* Covert Affairs (passes Bechdel Test)
* Leverage (passes the Bechdel Test)
Okay that's all I can think of. If you can come up with more - go ahead.
[ETC - got some weird responses to this question, so am clarifying my intent: on lj yesterday saw several posts about whether it was important to reveal your previous gender and sexual orientation to someone prior to boinking them. And if not doing so, ie - having sex with someone but not telling them you are "transgender" or "bisexual" - is a betrayal of trust akin to rape. This got me to thinking - what if any questions do people need to know the answers to prior to "boinking"? ] So, trying again: a hypothetical question, because I'm curious - before having sex with someoneyou just met, who is really hot, and you are completely turned on by, and it is so completely mutual - (ie. if you met your sexual ideal at a bar who considered you his/her sexual ideal as well) what if any questions would you absolutely have to know the answer to before you hop into bed with him or her? And what would be a deal breaker? What would make you turn them down? Would you care if they were transgender or bisexual? Does this matter? Or perhaps more importantly - do you care if they lie about it? For some of us - sex hinges on trust - so we care more about the lie or having the truth withheld than the actual response. But this poses yet another question - does your partner need to know the answer to those questions?
(I should answer this myself, I know. So, hypothetically?
[As an aside - I'm tempted to see Bernadette Peters in A Little Night Music or at least buy the album, yeah I know Catherine Zeta Jones won the emmy, but she does not have Peters voice and ability to interpret the lines. My favorite - Peters song was Children Will Listen from Into the Woods.]
Anyhow, regarding the above? Uh. Okay this is hypothetical because I've never had this actually happen to me. (Has anyone? On second thought, don't answer that.) But, I'd definitely need to know if they had a condom or protection, because you don't know where that thing has been. I'd also need to know if they were married, engaged, or on the rebound (because, just no.) Outside of that? I don't really care. Though about asking if they have STD's - but seriously folks as John Crichton would state, the answer to that is no. No one is going to tell you they have HIV or STD's. That's why we invented condoms! Was going to say God did, but to my knowledge God had zip to do with it.)
Deal breaker? They don't have a condom and/or they are married or engaged. Or involved with a friend or acquaintance in a romantic way. I learned the hard way NEVER to date or get involved with people my friends are romantically entangled with. It does not end well.
As for the trans question? I think I'd want to know - because that's part of who the person is. Just as I'd want to know if they are bi - because again that is part of who they are. And their ability to tell me - means that they trust me. If they can't tell me? Then there's clearly no trust and we shouldn't be sleeping together. But neither would be a deal-breaker.
As an another aside? If you ever get the chance to see the Broadway Musical Next to Normal - go! It is brilliant. And it doesn't matter who stars in it. The score and story is that good. It did not win The Pulitizer for no reason. Sort of like watching Who's Afraid of Virigina Woolf put to music with bi-polar and child loss issues combined. I laughed and sobbed during this musical. Best one I've seen in quite some time.
Thought about writing a post on Aeryn/Crichton relationship - which has got to be the best romantic relationship I've seen on tv. Sure it has its problems (tv after all) but, all in all, it works. And breaks/subverts a lot of tv rules in the process. The unwritten rule that the leads can't get together until the end of the series or sleep together. They not only sleep together in the first season, they comment on it, and it furthers their relationship. They also sleep together in the third, and fourth seasons. Kiss quite a bit in the second season. Their relationship is based less on adolescent yearning to have sex (I want to, but we shouldn't trope) and more on the cultural differences between them. Also, there's the gender role reversal - in this relationship, Crichton (the male lead) is in the traditional "female" role. He's weaker than she is physically, and more emotional, more vulnerable. She's a better pilot and warrior. She's also more contained. He constantly needs to say I love you, constantly needs to talk about it, and is constantly gabbing, she says very little. All the gender stereotypes are reversed. Also Aeryn is the one that comes from a paternalistic world, she is used to rules and order, and an endzone, while Crichton looks outside the box. But the show doesn't stop there - it does what most tv shows don't do, it allows its characters to remember what happens to them and to change. Aeryn becomes less emotionally contained, more vulnerable, and compassionate as the series rolls forward, while Crichton becomes more contained, less compassionate, and tougher. He goes from a character who would never pick up a weapon, to a character who sleeps with a pulse pistol and names it Winona, it never leaves his side. Aeryn goes from a character that shoots first and asks questions later, who will hit you to get the job done, to someone who prefers a more peaceful approach. She even accuses Crichton at one point of being paranoid in regards to Scorpius, while just a season before she was the one who couldn't trust him or anyone.
The only other TV show I've seen that played with this type of role reversal may have been Buffy the Vampire Slayer - with Spike and Buffy, and Xander with well everyone. But B/S never quite gets to the point that Aeryn/John do. We get distracted by the sexual violence, which unfortunately is a huge trope in urban gothic fantasy featuring vampires (if you hate sexual violence, don't watch or read stories about vampires and werewolves - both are metaphors for it). Say what you will about Farscape - but it doesn't really have sexual violence - except against Crichton, who is basically the most tortured protagonist of all time. Another bit about Farscape? They actually address the whole bit about Protagonist Privilege and how Americans think they can trump everyone else without blinking. I've rarely seen tv shows address this as directly as Farscape does. It does it in several episodes - including the final three hour movie Peacekeeper Wars. Crichton more or less admits that the power he has, he has no right to, no one does, and what he does is inherently wrong. With the best of intentions, he has become little more than an inter-galatic terrorist. And when he tries to go home, he is horrified by the American propaganda machine and the pressure to give the weapons he has discovered to one country to use against others. No matter where he goes, he can't escape violence, he can't escape warfare.
Thought also about doing the Feminist Guide to TV, but this idea is chock-full of potential fail. First, not everyone defines feminism in the same way. Second, people don't particularly like other people telling them what tv shows are politically correct to watch. (I'll watch the bloody Bachelor if I want to, thank you very much (I don't, personally for a lot of reasons I will not bore you with.))
At any rate, I will list the tv shows that I am watching at the moment or have recently watched or loved that I consider Feminist. If a show you happen to love is not on this list and you know I watch it - it does not necessarily mean I don't think it is Feminist, I may have just forgotten its existence or haven't watched it recently so feel ill-qualified to state so. I may look like a walking television encyclopedia, but I'm really not - honest.
Before I do the list of Feminist TV Shows, will state that my definition of Feminism is equal rights for both genders, where women and men are treated equally. Both are villians and heroes. The TV show doesn't necessarily have to pass the Bechdel Test to be Feminist, if it does pass the test - I'll indicate it. Bechdel Test is basically when female characters talk to other female characters about things other than men, and there is more than one female character in the cast.
Feminist TV Shows - that I can think of and have recently watched within last two years.
*Rizzoli & Isles (passes Bechdel Test)
* The Closer
* In Plain Sight (passes Bechdel Test)
* The Good Wife (passes Bechdel Test)
* True Blood (passes Bechdel Test)
* Damages (passes Bechdel Test)
* Farscape (passes Bechdel Test)
* Buffy the Vampire Slayer (passes Bechdel Test)
* Vampire Diaries (passes Bechdel Test)
* Gossip Girl (passes Bechdel Test)
* Mad Men
* Dexter
* Brothers & Sisters (passes Bechdel Test)
* Grey's Anatomy (passes Bechdel Test)
* Doctor Who
* Covert Affairs (passes Bechdel Test)
* Leverage (passes the Bechdel Test)
Okay that's all I can think of. If you can come up with more - go ahead.
[ETC - got some weird responses to this question, so am clarifying my intent: on lj yesterday saw several posts about whether it was important to reveal your previous gender and sexual orientation to someone prior to boinking them. And if not doing so, ie - having sex with someone but not telling them you are "transgender" or "bisexual" - is a betrayal of trust akin to rape. This got me to thinking - what if any questions do people need to know the answers to prior to "boinking"? ] So, trying again: a hypothetical question, because I'm curious - before having sex with someone
(I should answer this myself, I know. So, hypothetically?
[As an aside - I'm tempted to see Bernadette Peters in A Little Night Music or at least buy the album, yeah I know Catherine Zeta Jones won the emmy, but she does not have Peters voice and ability to interpret the lines. My favorite - Peters song was Children Will Listen from Into the Woods.]
Anyhow, regarding the above? Uh. Okay this is hypothetical because I've never had this actually happen to me. (Has anyone? On second thought, don't answer that.) But, I'd definitely need to know if they had a condom or protection, because you don't know where that thing has been. I'd also need to know if they were married, engaged, or on the rebound (because, just no.) Outside of that? I don't really care. Though about asking if they have STD's - but seriously folks as John Crichton would state, the answer to that is no. No one is going to tell you they have HIV or STD's. That's why we invented condoms! Was going to say God did, but to my knowledge God had zip to do with it.)
Deal breaker? They don't have a condom and/or they are married or engaged. Or involved with a friend or acquaintance in a romantic way. I learned the hard way NEVER to date or get involved with people my friends are romantically entangled with. It does not end well.
As for the trans question? I think I'd want to know - because that's part of who the person is. Just as I'd want to know if they are bi - because again that is part of who they are. And their ability to tell me - means that they trust me. If they can't tell me? Then there's clearly no trust and we shouldn't be sleeping together. But neither would be a deal-breaker.
As an another aside? If you ever get the chance to see the Broadway Musical Next to Normal - go! It is brilliant. And it doesn't matter who stars in it. The score and story is that good. It did not win The Pulitizer for no reason. Sort of like watching Who's Afraid of Virigina Woolf put to music with bi-polar and child loss issues combined. I laughed and sobbed during this musical. Best one I've seen in quite some time.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 03:09 am (UTC)Re: sex w/strangers... I did only once, back long before AIDS (or even herpes) was a thing... and I did ask the guy if he had ever had an scary diseases.... and I believed his 'no', he was an Air force cadet after all! lol
(and I was really stoned at the time).
Oh and 'A Little Night Music' would have been at the top of my must see list if Bernadette Peters had been in it while I was in NYC! I would LOVE to see her on stage someday! I'm less of a fan of Catherine Zeta Jones.
And I totally agree about 'Next to Normal', that was brilliant and haunting in so many ways!
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 04:43 pm (UTC)Bernadette Peters got better reviews - she's actually a better fit. Jones had to work hard to understand and make the role work, while Peters fits it naturally. (I always thought Jones was an odd choice for Desiree - she actually fits the role of the young wife better.)
On the Feminist TV list - yep that's why I haven't done the Feminist Guide to TV. It's not really a matter of what you should or shouldn't watch - just a matter of tagging the shows that actually are feminist. (I watch a lot of shows that aren't, some in fact border on misogynist (tis the noir genre, unfortunately - no escaping it) - *cough*Supernatural*cough*.)
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 07:43 pm (UTC)But, it was meant as a hypothetical question. I don't want people to tell if they actually experienced it or not or what they'd do based on experience. I'm not willing to tell anyone THAT.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 08:33 pm (UTC)And I suppose I should delete my post above, except that I've spent 40 years pretending that never happened and all of a sudden I decided that it was no big deal!
My problem answering the question hypothetically is that that is the kind of thing your reasoning sensible mind assumes you would never do, until impulse (or impairment) makes you do it... And if you do it then you can't pretend that you were being sensible or that you reasoned out what would constitute a deal breaker.
Just my own personal opinion of course, from my POV.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 04:11 pm (UTC)Unfortunately that's true of most behavor related questions.
People assume they'd do the reasonable/morally upright thing as they or their culture defines it, but in reality? It depends on the situation. In a social psyche course I took - we two videos of controversial experiments, the famous or rather infamous Zimbardo Prison Experiment (which Veronica Mars referenced) and
the educational torture test - say the wrong word and the volunteer shocks the person. Before both experiments, people insisted that "they'd" never do these things. But when they were put in the situation - they did do them.
We really don't know. And in each sitch, the response can be completely different.
Which is why people should be careful not to be too judgemental of other's actions, because well...you never know what you would do. It's all well and good to condemn one's neighbor for
x, until you suddenly find yourself doing x too.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 04:01 am (UTC)If the answer to that is "no," then it's a deal-breaker, because the only way I can imagine having sex with someone I just met, no matter how hot they are, is if I'd been taken over by aliens. I have trust issues.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 04:47 pm (UTC)And, yeah, I have serious trust issues too - I don't do casual sex. ;-) (hence the whole hypothetical) What I really wanted to know was what you need to know about a person before engaging in it.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:17 am (UTC)As for being feminist tv. I think I have a different deffinition. To me just having interesting female characters is not enough. A feminist tv show to me has to have something to say about feminism, about the roles we have in society and about challening them.
I'd call Mad Men feminist, Buffy and maybe the Closer.
I of course enjoy tons of shows I'd not call feminist too and I really think not every show has to be.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 04:49 pm (UTC)Well, its certainly nice to know that I'm not the only cautious person in this area. But...that wasn't my question. My fault, I phrased it poorly. I've gone back and clarified it. I just wanted to know what people need to know about them - and more directly, if it would bug people if they hid certain aspects of themselves - such as gender, sexual orientation.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 08:44 pm (UTC)Sexual orientation, you mean if that person is only experimenting with my sex or something like that? I guess it would be nice to know, but not a must.
I think the things I'd need to know are more along the lines of what does that person laugh about and how mean can he/she get?
If I get the impression that a person is too loud, a homophobe or generally someone who likes to make fun of others and look down on them for stupid reasons. That's something I'd need to know upfront, because I could never trust someone like that. I need to know how they talk about their friends and exes, stuff like that.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:19 am (UTC)Eww.
I'll take the Crichton POV on casual over the Aeryn.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 04:52 pm (UTC)what you need to know about them before boinking. What questions would have to be answered? How much information was required? There are things people don't know about people they've dated for years after all.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 12:45 am (UTC)I do have romantic preferences but I will make exceptions to my preferences for a special person who inspires me. When I am single I'm looking for a way to live more actively and share a deeper relationship with all of life. I'm not seeking a perfect packaged partner to purchase and consume. There's no official checklist.
I have to say I've almost never been involved with anyone who's not a female who was born female. But if I never asked, then it's my responsibility if I'm disappointed. That isn't an issue of a legitimate threat to life or health.
I went out a few times with a very pretty young lady who mentioned that her "sister" had one of those incurable STDs and didn't tell her partners about it. She failed to express shocked disapproval and that was enough for me to cut the relationship short.
As for lying, I expect a certain amount. In the community where all of my dating in the last few years has taken place, all the women claim to be virgins. None of them has had a serious boyfriend in her past but they wanted to save themselves for marriage. Good for me that I remember all the methods women have used to try to get me into bed over the years when I was reluctant. Some of them work.
Lying outside the accepted community standards would be a red flag. But if a woman insisted on knowing if I'd been with one of her friends before her? I'd prefer to change the subject but kissing and telling is far worse than a little white lie. The complicated part is when you're new to a culture and don't know which are the accepted lies.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 07:51 am (UTC)About pick-ups: The deal breakers are myriad in such a situation. Just about any false note would break my "deal". It's a delicate operation, negotiating a tryst with a little-known person. Even with a known person, the pitfalls are many. (Oh, so many.)
These days, I'm thinking more about how people overcome their fears and "couple up". I did it so long ago I'm not sure I remember the steps, as it were. I was amused by the Doctor wondering how so many people came to be on Earth, watching the not-yet-a-couple in "The Lodger" whiff it so often. Some of us just throw caution to the wind at some point, I suppose. I seem to recall it takes courage. Preferably with a dollop of rational judgment on top.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 04:55 pm (UTC)So yes, it fits the definition.
On the pickup question? I clearly phrased it wrong. I didn't want to know whether or not people would do it. But what questions you'd ask assuming you did do it - or what you need to know about a person before having sex with them. I went back and clarified.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 09:40 am (UTC)As for your question about the hypothetical situation, I wouldn't ask anything. I mean, if I'm that turned on that I would be willing to have sex with a stranger I just met, I don't think I would be rational enough to ponder any info that would be a deal breaker because that wouldn't be my state of mind. The only thing that could break the spell would be an outer intervention.
But that's me, I 'm either impulsive and animal-like(very rarely, I must say) or thoughtful (most of the time), but I can't be both at once.
As soon as I begin to rationalize things it's very unlikely I will have sex with someone I just met. I am not casual at all.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:01 pm (UTC)Nope. I've only seen S1 and the first 7 episodes of S2. So far?
It fits the definition of feminism. Doesn't mean it can't change.
Can't really comment on S3. Won't be able to see it until it comes out on DVD in Summer of 2011.
for your question about the hypothetical situation, I wouldn't ask anything. I mean, if I'm that turned on that I would be willing to have sex with a stranger I just met, I don't think I would be rational enough to ponder any info that would be a deal breaker because that wouldn't be my state of mind. The only thing that could break the spell would be an outer intervention.
I clearly phrased this question wrong. Because everyone is answering the wrong question. I don't want to know whether you'd have sex with someone you just met or not. (Hell, I wouldn't, eww.) I want to know what questions, if any, you would ask before engaging in a sexual relationship with someone.
What do you need to know about them? And what bits of information would upset you or be a deal breaker if they did not disclose them? I rephrased it above - so it is clearer. Apologies for the confusion.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 11:09 am (UTC)And another show that both passes the Bedchell test and is actually strongly feminist to my opinion at least, is 'the Gates'
The female characters' storyline is as strong as the males, and their female characters are as well defined as the male ones.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:02 pm (UTC)The Gates? Haven't watched, so will have to trust you on that one. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 08:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 08:18 pm (UTC)Casual sex with friends? Heck yes! But even if you are really really really attracted to someone, you still can't always tell what kind of person they are, and it really sucks to realize halfway through that, yes they are hot, yes you click really well, but then they say something stupid or offensive beyond belief and you just want to get up and leave, but to avoid awkwardness and make it easy, you have to stay and at least finish whatever you were doing.
Ugh. Never again. Just so not worth it.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 04:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 07:39 pm (UTC)Deal-breakers:
- anything politically nauseating (e.g., any unironic use of the word "fag," mentioning G. W. as an idol, something about keeping "those people" out of our country, being "tickled" by the fact that I want to work outside the home, etc.)
- indications that they would participate in unsafe sex with strangers (i.e. if they had unprotected sex with a girlfriend they dated for two years that's fine, but not with a stranger like me)
- signs of thinly controlled anger or violent urges. I would not want to be with someone in a naked and vulnerable when and if they became unhinged.
- if they are engaged or married.
- if they are seriously intoxicated. Drunk sex in general is just not very good, without even going into consent issues, or regret the next morning.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-11 09:01 pm (UTC)I'm bisexual, so someone hiding that they were transgendered wouldn't matter a lot to me since I'm attracted to both genders anyway. If I thought I was getting a vagina, and ended up with a penis, or vice versa, so what, I like them both.
But I also think it's a little unrealistic to expect someone who is only attracted to one gender, and has only had one kind of genital interaction before, to have a genital!surprise thrown at them in the middle of sex and expect them to just go along with it calmly. And that has less to do with transphobia than just general sexual expectations.
If a heterosexual male doesn't want to touch another person's penis, then fine, that's his deal. He shouldn't feel like he's being forced to participate in a certain kind of sex, and like anybody else, he should be able to withdraw his consent at any point in the process.
It seems like transphobia is a trickier deal than homophobia, because nobody expects you to have sex with a gay person if you are straight. You can like LGBs as people, but not as sexual partners and it's fine.
So then, if you are okay with transfolk as friends, but freak out when you find out you are having sex with one mid-fling, does that make you actually transphobic, or just penis/vagina-phobic?
I feel like a lot of people could be pretty freaked out by having stuff sprung on them in bed and feel like they didn't consent to it - being suddenly presented by a giant strap-on, or edible body chocolate, or a sex-swing, or whatever, and then want to leave because they are not comfortable. It has at least as much to do with sexual expectations and experiences as oppression.