After Nina welcomes self-described autoandrophile and pervert advocate Aaron “The Contraaron” Terrell with a deliberate misgendering, the two adult human females discuss male sexuality while actual male Corinna mostly bites his tongue. Topics include Terrell’s surprising shift from hetero- to homosexuality on exogenous testosterone, pretty privilege, internet porn, eating disorders, autogynephobia, fertility signals, sexual dimorphism, pseudo-attraction, political religion, autism, twitter kerfuffles, and enforcement of the purity of the word “lesbian.” Terrell not only has the most lesbian cred of the three (female with a female partner) but also the most testosterone! This episode offers more than enough to offend everyone.
Links:
Aaron on Twitter: https://twitter.com/elegationvain
I enjoy Being a Girl (an autogynephile anthem): https://youtu.be/LtQBrShqgls?si=G5-KicuUvKxmlEzf&t=42
Jamie Reed episode: https://www.heterodorx.com/podcast/episode-126-mitigating-the-damage-with-jamie-reed/
Joe Burgo on Autogynephilia as Psychic Retreat: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/sympathy-for-the-devil-autogynephilia
J Michael Bailey episode: https://www.heterodorx.com/podcast/episode-53-autogynephilia-michael-bailey/
Transparency podcast: https://www.genderdysphoriaalliance.com/podcast
Do not miss your pod or is it cast? Started back at the beginning when I finally got around to listening and am now caught up. Even read a book because of it (Middle Finger) but also because I once lived in East Lansing and still have family near there. Nina, do you know of roads near you called Rubyfruit and Jungle because it used to be there was Lesbian Land near there in the days when Rita May Brown’s Rubyfruit Jungle book was the first one any Lesbian coming out read? Long long ago? We, some Old Lesbians like me and others, are wondering about that land and what became of it. 82 year-old GC who thinks women don’t ever have penises no matter what they might contrive. No Penises on Women. Never ever.
Yeah, I don’t agree with you Aaron but I want to find where our common ground may lie. What I basically heard you argue is that we should accept fetishized male perversion as “okay and normal” as long they “aren’t committing crimes” because “men have a compulsive need they can’t control,” and women just don’t understand how deeply that is driven because we have less testosterone and “don’t get these intense desires at the same level”. Did I misunderstand? I know I paired it down and simplified it, rather than write a dissertation, but that’s basically the gist of what you were saying, yes?