EA Forums

Mac (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:16 am Punky

If you are as beautiful and feminine as your avatar suggests (thought that it might actually be you) you should not have any problem being accepted as a real girl. Unless, of course, you make it a point to tell everybody that you have a dick. Only the other girls with whom you desire an intimate relationship have a need to know.

Society has to be able to differentiate between women and men for the purpose of reproduction. Beyond that, way to much emphas is placed on separation based on ones genitals.

There should not be any need for public separation based on ones genetilia as long as adequate privacy is provided. Only the human species, in some societies, requires such unnatural separation.

Girls like you who are able to live and present yourselves as true women are more fortunate than most.

Bless you, Girl!

I would no more go around telling people I have a dick than a cisgendered woman would go around telling people she has a pussy. Its not even about seeking acceptance, its just weird to go around screaming about one's genitals.

It is something I would own up to if theres a need, such as right now, a discussion involving the topic of transwomen, or yes, as you've mentioned, when I'm dating. I tell them early to avoid the "surprise!!!" syndrome later on.

And yes, that is indeed me in my display pic.

When I asked the question that started this thread I was in the early stages of beginning to wear panties and bra and expressing the desire to become a Tgirl. It was just a simple question and I was hoping for some simple answers.

Never in my wildest dreams did I think it would escalate into the intellectual discussion so far over my head that I found it hard to digest.

After reading this high flautin info I've decided to keep my tiny balls and recessed turtle dick. I haven't been able to find anyone to castrate me anyway and it seems that it would be easier to continue to sit down and pee through my little turtle than it would be without it.

Now I have another question but being the ill informed dummy I am I'm almost afraid to ask it.

How can I get my breasts/tits to become more ladylike and grow? I've read that being a biological male taking hormones can cause blood clots, strokes etc. Is this a risk I should not take?

What is the cost of having implants? Is this a lesser risk?

I remember seeing a TV special on the serial killer (mass rapist) Richard Speck and the guys who kept him as their pussy-girl in prison had him taking something that caused him to develope female type breasts. What did they give him? Did it cause his untimely death?

I thought it was really sexy that this once masculine man had been reduced to being a feminine whore for a bunch of prisoners. I don't want to get arrested for anything but I would like to be feminized like he was. Is there a simple way to do this?

If I can develope lady breasts I want to move to another state and live out my life as a lady - with a little something extra. And you know from seeing my profile pic that it is really a little something. Can you help this old lady out with some simple advice? Thanks!

I'd say, implants are probably safer than hormones. Hormones would seem to carry a higher risk. While I don't approve, nontheless there is a health risk issue here, so I'd advise you to visit sites dealing with transition for transwomen, and read up very carefully on the pros and cons of taking female hormones. Besides physical health risk, there is also the risk of psychological effects such as depression caused by a change in your body's chemical balance.

As for being feminised, I don't see why you'd get arrested? I cannot in good conscience suggest self-medication with regards to hormones, but certainly lots of transwomen have resorted to self-medication on hormones without ever getting into trouble with the law.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:11 am Thats my take on the type of admirers listed here. There is a reason I don't join most of these social groups like yours Eliz. While I'd love to meet the ones in category 2, the other 3 types will just disgust, insult and ultimately anger me.

I don't disagree with you at all, I believe we are on the same page. I was only reporting what I see, not suggesting I approve of any of the particular admirers. As a rule, I do not consider admirers a good thing and in fact on the forum where I moderate, we ban them.

While I did start the group, other than removing spam posts, I do not participate and I do not accept friend invitations from group members. For those of us who have seen the sexual exploitation of

transsexuals, it's heart breaking. It's no different in many ways from the exploitation of women in general and the men who exploit women who suffer from low self esteem. I just think that many of those we call admirers see transsexuals as an easier target because of almost universal low self esteem and self image problems.

Anyways, nice post!

Elizabeth

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:10 pm I don't disagree with you at all, I believe we are on the same page. I was only reporting what I see, not suggesting I approve of any of the particular admirers. As a rule, I do not consider admirers a good thing and in fact on the forum where I moderate, we ban them.

While I did start the group, other than removing spam posts, I do not participate and I do not accept friend invitations from group members. For those of us who have seen the sexual exploitation of

transsexuals, it's heart breaking. It's no different in many ways from the exploitation of women in general and the men who exploit women who suffer from low self esteem. I just think that many of those we call admirers see transsexuals as an easier target because of almost universal low self esteem and self image problems.

Anyways, nice post!

Elizabeth

No no, I know you don't condone or condemn them. You've actually posted a very good objective take on the major types of admirers out there, without which, my more detailed discourse on each type would not be able to expressed. The last bit is merely an explanation as to why as much as I would like to help more, I have not been able to join such social groups. In fact, sometimes even people on the EA have peeved me off with their attitudes towards transpeople, such as insisting on using terms like "ladyboy" to refer to transwomen.

There are a few well known members, one of whom recently has "left", for whom transwomen are simply for sexual gratification and nothing more, and who've reacted in a less than positive way when I requested that they be more sensitive about why degradory terms like "ladyboy" are not encouraged. A dismissive "oh lighten up" sort of attitude as a response clearly indicates said person doesn't actually care for the well-being of a fellow group of human beings beyond their use as sex objects.

For the rest, you've pretty much constantly hit the nail on the head.

The comments about sexual exploitation, low self esteem and self image problems may define me. You've made me think that I probably do want to be sexually exploited - although I don't exactly know what that means.

I'd like to be one man's lady but would also be a willing prostitute for him if that's what he demanded.

On the one hand I'm 71 and have a reasonably active sex life but having an active sex life of a new kind might add excitement to the life of this old girl. Do you think I'm headed for trouble, disappointment or being a pitiful old slut?

On the other hand do you think the excitement for an old girl who doesn't want to grow old gracefully is worth a little exploitation?

I respect your knowledge, judgment and advice. You folks on this site are so very intelligent and helpful. Thanks!

NO one should have to prostitute them self's, willing or otherwise for "love". This is just plan wrong.

Castrated or not Tgirls are girls. During the process of become a Tgirl the estrogen shuts down the testicles so procreation after a time can no longer happen.

Myself I should of listened to my self and became a MTF (Tgril) and most likily been much more happy.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:51 am I'd say, implants are probably safer than hormones. Hormones would seem to carry a higher risk. While I don't approve, nontheless there is a health risk issue here, so I'd advise you to visit sites dealing with transition for transwomen, and read up very carefully on the pros and cons of taking female hormones. Besides physical health risk, there is also the risk of psychological effects such as depression caused by a change in your body's chemical balance.

I have enjoyed the interchange of ideas on this thread and agree with much of what has been posted. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to participate more.

As for relative benefit to risk ratios of implants vs. hormones, this is difficult to quantify although epidemiological studies likely exist that would allow this comparison. While there are known risks to taking estrogen, including blood clots, depression and migraines, there are risks (often serious) with all medications. Many of these improve quality of life and the risks are considered manageable. We all have to make an informed decision, meaning in consultation with a physician, on whether the benefits of hormones outweigh the risks. It's also a risk to count on web sites, run by transsexual persons or not, as the only source for advice on hormones. I have found a lot of incorrect information on some of these. Some are very good, others are misleading. A consultation with a good endocrinologist provides the opportunity to ask questions and get very informed answers.

The same benefit vs. risk analysis should be done with any type of elective surgery, including implants. Breast implants are known to make it more difficult to detect tumors through mammography. There are men who get breast cancer, for instance, who have not taken estrogen. So someone who identifies as a male-to-female transsexual, takes no estrogen, but has implants still has a risk of breast cancer. In addition, implants carry the risk of infection, breast pain, scar tissue that distorts the shape of the breast, extrusion of the implant through the skin, necrosis (death of tissue around the implants that may require surgery to remove), loss of sensation and several other complications. (Source: www.JustBreatImplants.com (http://www.justbreastimplants.com/implants/) and the Mayo Clinic web site (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast ... ts/WO00052).)

For nearly 20 months, I have been using an estrogen patch which is known to reduce the risk of blood clots relative to other forms of estrogen administration. My cardiac related blood chemistry has improved since I started estrogen, although I am not certain if this is a predictor of blood clots that can occur in the legs, for instance. While I have had major depression most of my life, estrogen has not worsened this. In fact, I feel calmer and I have never been happier. I also suffer from migraines, but I have seen a huge reduction in migraines since I started estrogen. Of course, part of this may be because I am finally living the life I was born for. In any case, the reported risk of increased migraine frequency and intensity has not been my reality.

I transitioned to full time living as the woman I am before I knew I would receive approval to take estrogen. At that time, I told a friend that if I were never able to take estrogen I would certainly continue to identify as female. Ultimately, as has been pointed out here many times, it is what's between our ears that lets us know who we are.

I have been unemployed over 5 months now. It took me awhile to get over the initial shock of losing my job. Since then, I have been surprised (and pleased) to find that my life continues to get better and I am happier than ever. Very good things can come from being true to who you really are.

turtle12 (imported) wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:09 am The comments about sexual exploitation, low self esteem and self image problems may define me. You've made me think that I probably do want to be sexually exploited - although I don't exactly know what that means.

I'd like to be one man's lady but would also be a willing prostitute for him if that's what he demanded.

On the one hand I'm 71 and have a reasonably active sex life but having an active sex life of a new kind might add excitement to the life of this old girl. Do you think I'm headed for trouble, disappointment or being a pitiful old slut?

On the other hand do you think the excitement for an old girl who doesn't want to grow old gracefully is worth a little exploitation?

I respect your knowledge, judgment and advice. You folks on this site are so very intelligent and helpful. Thanks!

To be honest, I'd choose dignity over short term thrills any time, but I am not in your shoes and I can't possibly be aware of the various motivations behind your choices.

Maybe the best advice I can give you is to have standards. Being a transwoman does not mean we automatically give up our rights to have standards. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and you need to realise that your validation of who you are should not be dependent on your sexual life. By all means, like what you like, but don't let that become entwined with your validation, because in the end, it is that very validation of who we are that sustains us, not short term thrills.

Also, there are other ways of staying young and refusing to age gracefully. I tell people I'm 18 forever, and they do believe it too, unless the engage in some in-depth discussion, then sadly my real age shows D:

As for hormonal advice, I'm glad Danya's stepped in. Shes the one to listen to for she is much more knowledgable than I am when it comes to hormones.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:08 am If a person's natural instinct is to identify as a woman, even if he/she does nothing about it, that is woman enough. Afterall I've done none of what you've suggested for the criteria of being woman enough... would you say I'm not woman enough?

Living as a women is women enough and Emily your PLENTY women enough for me.

I would add that my "Mr T" is not about being black (I'm not- I AM trying) or being a Retired TV Star but about "T"estosterone. And "if" you ever do ponder Estrogen I think you will be happily surprised how much it does rewire things. And no, not talking about the physical changes so much as the mental ones. If you ever do go down that road you can be "Miss E"mily/Estrogen.

You... you mean Mr T is not about Snickers? MR T IS NOT ABOUT SNICKERS?!?!?!?

Anakin-esque NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOO

*devistated*

Wait on that ONE thing it IS about the Snickers. Because there is NOTHING better then a smashed up frozen snickers on ice cream NOTHING! Well, wild love making on silk sheets but its CLOSE!!! Very Very close!

I pity the fool who doesn't believe that Mr T is all about the Snickers! And why they pulled the real Mr T from doing them is beyond me!

mrt (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:54 am I think the term confuses people. Maybe I'm being simple but "transexual" seems to me to be a stage between one sex and the other and if a person who was born with guy parts going through all this trouble (hormones, Surgery etc) I think they ought to be simply women (or men if going the other way)

Yeah, it seems that there is a distinction between MTF transsexuals who want to be changed into women and those who want to remain in-between.

I'd suggest that those who remain in-between are driven more by lust and are actually in a similar category of objectification (I guess self-objectification) to those that admire/lust after them. That it why it is tempting to subscribe to the "autogynerotic" label for such transsexuals. I realize that most object to that category, but I have known transsexuals who seemed to fetishize themselves and I'm not sure that is psychologically healthy. Other transsexuals I know are fully "female" in their whole being and psychology. There is a big difference (in my humble opinion) between these types of transsexuals.

Sorry for all the labels, but at some level categorization is useful for understanding ...

SplitDik (imported) wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:20 pm Yeah, it seems that there is a distinction between MTF transsexuals who want to be changed into women and those who want to remain in-between.

I'd suggest that those who remain in-between are driven more by lust and are actually in a similar category of objectification (I guess self-objectification) to those that admire/lust after them. That it why it is tempting to subscribe to the "autogynerotic" label for such transsexuals. I realize that most object to that category, but I have known transsexuals who seemed to fetishize themselves and I'm not sure that is psychologically healthy. Other transsexuals I know are fully "female" in their whole being and psychology. There is a big difference (in my humble opinion) between these types of transsexuals.

Sorry for all the labels, but at some level categorization is useful for understanding ...

Here is one who has no plans to PHYSICALLY become woman at least for the foreseeable future and what she has to say.

No, I am not remaining "in-between" as you so uncharitably term us because I am driven by lust. It is because I believe what makes me woman is who I am inside rather than what I have outside. By all purposes and intent, I expect, and am treated as a woman, and because that is my innate gender-identity, that is very much all I ask for. Any physical changes, I see as a bonus, not a must, if it happens.

Personally, I do not think there is a distinction between transwomen who need or do not need that physical change. Would you make such a distinction between women who are psychologically happy with having small boobs and women who HAVE to get a boob job done? End of the day they're all still women. In fact for cisgendered people, it is commonly regarded as being healthy in mind to be able to accept your own physical imperfections and not seek plastic surgery, so why is it reversed when it comes to transgendered persons and seen as unhealthy to not want surgery?

Yes, there are lots of fetishistic trans who make me question their motives too, but personally I feel they make up a very small percentage of the transcommunity(both the out and obvious transpeople, and the stealth transpeople). In fact, to counter your point, I'd like to point out what I believe to be an even more worrying trend that seems all to often to be glossed over: a LOT more transpeople are so lacking in their psychological identity or self-esteem/confidence that they seek to over-compensate through physical surgery. Is that what you consider psychologically healthy? I think that is worse than someone whose psychology is sound even if they seek to change nothing physical.

I won't even begin to mention the transpeople who would not seek to change anything physical if it wasn't for the majority of the community who has pushed an intolerant and polarised view of "if you don't want physical changes you're not one of us" onto the transcommunity. Given the need for acceptance by the community after being rejected by mainstream society, it is very easy to get bullied into conforming to a set view of what makes one a "true" transperson. Not everyone is as strong to say "bollocks" to that sort of misguided bias and maintain that the true distinct point of being a woman rests squarely on the psychological identity and anything physical is a bonus, not a pre-requisite.

So I have to disagree with you that there should be a distinction between transwomen who want or do not want physical changes. In fact, if there should be a distinction, it should be on one's motivations, regardless of the choice of action. I'd suggest it is a whole lot more important to be fully female in one's psychology than one's being, otherwise, a lot of pre and non-ops who ARE wholy female in psychology but not in being are being(no pun intended) unfairly and unkindly marginalised and invalidated by your suggestion.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:32 am So I have to disagree with you that there should be a distinction between transwomen who want or do not want physical changes. In fact, if there should be a distinction, it should be on one's motivations, regardless of the choice of action. I'd suggest it is a whole lot more important to be fully female in one's psychology than one's being, otherwise, a lot of pre and non-ops who ARE wholy female in psychology but not in being are being(no pun intended) unfairly and unkindly marginalised and invalidated by your suggestion.

As usual, a very wise post from you. Humans always seem to want to create discrete pigeonholes for everything. They want to set clear boundaries and then name what fits inside. We are making a bit of progress in the areas of sex and gender, but there are STILL a great many out there (fortunately not many here on the Archive) who can think only in terms of "male" and "female" and not realize that each of those categories contains an incredible diversity. We can either continue to create new, and smaller, categories or recognize that categories are always artificial and distortions of reality.

Before I retired, I told every beginning anthropology class (and most of the more advanced ones as well) that a principal goal of the entire course was that they were to learn to "delight in the diversity of humanity!"

With the current revision process of the DSM, there is a very heated discussion going on among professional sex therapists as to whether or not "autogynephilia" ought to be a discrete category, separate from all other varieties of gender dysphoria. Some of the exchanges are nastier than most would imagine coming from "professional" psychologists and psychiatrists.

JesusA wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:48 am We can either continue to create new, and smaller, categories or recognize that categories are always artificial and distortions of reality.

It is ironic that the borders between people get longer and longer the shorter we make our measuring stick. Hopefully one day the measuring stick will be so small and insignificant we will forget where we last set it down, and then we will see each other as we truly are.

Its difficult for me to comment because I'm not there but if I can suggest a (possibly) similar type of thing. When I made up my mind to have an orchiectomy to deal with my Orchialgia and atrophy part of the appeal was that once the removal part was done (Which wasn't the part I was 100% crazy about) the surgeon agreed to give me a new pair of replacements. Now, these are not "functional" I can't get testosterone from them or knock anyone up but I wanted the "look and feel" that goes with being male. When I talked to one rather famous surgeon who is more well known for doing SRS/GRS about doing this the comment was made "You would be my first male to MALE sex change" and maybe in a way this is how I see this as well. Pre op I was pretty pathetic in a visual way. And my old pair didn't function much better then my implants.

So, in a way I see myself as one of the folks that seeks the whole hormones, surgery type of thing. While I was researching the implants (And size IS important - I don't care what anyone says) and safety I met a number of men who had the same sort of situation who were very vocal about not "needing" this to feel male. Some were simply more worried about the possible health concern of having anything put in their bodies. Others seemed to me to be so "macho" they didn't need no stinkin badges!

I fully accept that what they decided to do (or not) but I also reserve the right to say I like my choice and am more then willing to share this with others and give them my two cents on safety and which implants feel "right" and hang well or whatever.

Emily am I tuned into the right wavelength here with you? I mean I'm totally cool with you and how you are doing your personal transition. I see GRS and hormones as being slightly more "conventional" and perhaps some of this is more for others in some cases. *Potential mates for example. On the other hand I think some TS people really do want this for themselves. The desire to use androgen blockers and estrogen etc to "rewire" the mind. And on this I may have another incite. Testosterone is much more about how male "I" am then I would ever have guessed. I can guess that its the same for Estrogen and based on conversations with other TS people think its true.

I rather hope you will give that option another look because I think from what I've read real "estrogen" (Not Synthetic Horse Urine stuff) is safe. Although I have an odd thing about the mix which includes female levels of Testosterone to make it "right" but thats another topic.

VIVA SNICKERS!

- Your Chum MrT

Back to the ORIGINAL topic... I think a woman that has a penis is much more attractive without an unsightly set of testicles. That's just my opinion though.

I'll vote for women with a ready and willing vagina and no testicles for ahh obvious reasons.

mrt (imported) wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:18 am I fully accept that what they decided to do (or not) but I also reserve the right to say I like my choice

I suppose the whole thing can be condensed into this little paragraph of yours. We are who we are. It is all a personal choice. There is simply no physical pre-requsites as to our right to be recognised for who we are. Thus...

mrt (imported) wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:18 am Emily am I tuned into the right wavelength here with you? I mean I'm totally cool with you and how you are doing your personal transition. I see GRS and hormones as being slightly more "conventional" and perhaps some of this is more for others in some cases. *Potential mates for example. On the other hand I think some TS people really do want this for themselves. The desire to use androgen blockers and estrogen etc to "rewire" the mind. And on this I may have another incite. Testosterone is much more about how male "I" am then I would ever have guessed. I can guess that its the same for Estrogen and based on conversations with other TS people think its true.

I rather hope you will give that option another look because I think from what I've read real "estrogen" (Not Synthetic Horse Urine stuff) is safe. Although I have an odd thing about the mix which includes female levels of Testosterone to make it "right" but thats another topic.

VIVA SNICKERS!

- Your Chum MrT

Conventional really shouldn't be a factor in anything. If it were, then by convention, even gay people should not be allowed to be gay, women should have no rights, we should still have absolute monarchies etc... These things were all once conventions, but as we become wiser and more knowledgable as a species, we realise such conventions were wrong, and slowly abandoned them. Same for what is considered "conventional" for transpeople. It should all be a personal choice, not a pre-requisite for being "trans". Yes, some of them really want physical changes for themselves, but that does not make them any more "trans" than those who don't. Estrogen does not make them "more" female, it makes them THINK that. I'm fine if that is their personal choice, but I don't think a choice born out of the possible insecurities of some people should be allowed to dictate who "is" and "isn't" trans.

So no, I will not be considering that option anytime soon, simply because at this stage, I feel no need for it, and more importantly, because it is against my principles with regards to this matter.

What a can of worms.....

If I like the T-girl, it's not because their are missing testicles or not..... If it did I would be just a shallow person, or many other adjectives which are not a nice description of a real person.

punkypink (imported) wrote: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:53 am I suppose the whole thing can be condensed into this little paragraph of yours. We are who we are. It is all a personal choice. There is simply no physical pre-requsites as to our right to be recognised for who we are. Thus...

Estrogen does not make them "more" female, it makes them THINK that. I'm fine if that is their personal choice, but I don't think a choice born out of the possible insecurities of some people should be allowed to dictate who "is" and "isn't" trans.

So no, I will not be considering that option anytime soon, simply because at this stage, I feel no need for it, and more importantly, because it is against my principles with regards to this matter.

I would disagree (to a "degree" ) on the hormone part and agree 100% with you on the physical changes (Surgery etc) point. I think this is only important if it is important to you! No one should have SRS/GRS or whatever cosmetic changes there are out there for someone else or to satisfy someone elses image of what they think you should be.

I disagree on the Estrogen part of you comment only to this extent. I think based on my experience with lack of testosterone and how it makes me feel that its not the same thing. ie it really does rewire things and I mean this not for its physical changes but how it "wires" you to think and how you act. Its so much more about being male or female then I think anyone who hasn't done without could ever believe. Having said this I admit having no experience with trying hormones in the female "mix" so its just an opinion based on my experiences with male hormones. And unlike most people I admit I might be wrong. Anyway, Emily without sounding like a "dope dealer" I think it would be of value to give HRT a trial and see how it works for you. It might be a big nothing but I truly suspect you will find the experience very powerful. The one danger however is that I suspect it could easily be addictive!

_g (imported) wrote: Tue Mar 09, 2010 2:59 am What a can of worms.....

If I like the T-girl, it's not because their are missing testicles or not..... If it did I would be just a shallow person, or many other adjectives which are not a nice description of a real person.

Ok, but shallow as this might sound if a person fell for someone who was transgendered and was put off by the male "parts" is that totally wrong? By that I mean this. Take a vanilla guy who falls for Miss X and she admits that she was born Mr X. The guy is ok with this but... Not really into the sexual aspect of dealing with male parts in the bedroom. If Miss X is on the road to going through with GRS everything is "cool" but if it means dealing with making love in a way that makes it more like gay sex? Is it "ok" that Mr X says "This is really not my thing and I'm not into that?"

I think its an issue that more couples have to deal with and understanding on both sides is important to them. And by the same token if Miss X wants the Vanilla Marriage and sex life is it "ok" that she wants vanilla male/female sex? Again, I think this is fine and if nothing else makes less demands on each others comfort levels. I'm sure there are people who prefer the non vanilla aspects of such a relationship and I'm not saying thats not valid either.

Snickers is so much easier to talk about!

mrt, I thing you are missing the point of my post. If the T-girl was up front about her status the persons which make her status a big deal either will loss interest or continue developing a relationship.

I'm saying it's the both persons which make relationships work, even if it's for a one night stand, both persons should want that also.

_g

Preferences are just that. The trans woman is going to have her preferences too and she has that right. We are all wired differently and have different tastes, fantasies and desires and it is up to us to find a mate or partner that is compatable.

A guy prefering a trans woman with a penis isn't any different than a woman who wouldn't settle for a mate that wouldn't satisfy her size wise. As long as no one is forced into anything, it just isn't important. If someone doesn't have enough spine to tell someone else that they arn't going to change their life of body for their selfish desire, oh well. Life sucks if you don't speak up for yourself.