Men and paraphilias

Men KNOW that ordinary women. Their mums grannies sisters aunts friends (if any?!) don't think or feel that stuff.

They ignore that in favour of a fantasy.

Find-

Those examples are SO American! And with 'maid' dunno if that's a class thing or a race thing!

Just so weird to read!

Examples obv vv different across time, country, class etc etc.

I mean 'douching' was a thing there wtf. Really not a good thing to do! Fetishising that... As if American women sqirting watered down Dettol up themselves was a sexual thing for them.

Ffffffffffs

[quote FindTheTruth]From earlier in the thread.

A TRA was claiming that most women have AGP - it's just 'feeling sexy'.'

Men with AGP have been saying for yonks that women have it too.

is surely just taking women's requirement to self-objectify under a patriarchy and using it against us to claim it's an innate part of being a woman?

Ray Blanchard answers the Question with "I do not believe that autogynephilia occurs in natal females." and "It seems a lot less feasible when one considers the various other ways in which some autogynephilic men symbolize themselves as women in their masturbation fantasies. Examples I have collected include: sexual fantasies of menstruation and masturbatory rituals that simulate menstruation; giving oneself an enema, while imagining the anus is a vagina and the enema is a vaginal douche; helping the maid clean the house; sitting in a girls’ class at school; knitting in the company of other women; and riding a girls’ bicycle. These examples argue that autogynephilic sexual fantasies have a fetishistic flavor that makes them qualitatively different from any superficially similar ideation in natal females."

"There is also the telling phenomenon of autogynephiles who are involuntarily aroused by cross-dressing or cross-gender ideation, and who complain about difficulties changing into women’s attire without triggering erection or ejaculation. It seems likely that few natal women would give the analogous reports that they wish that they could put on their clothes without triggering vaginal lubrication or orgasm"

quillette.com/2019/11/06/what-is-autogynephilia-an-interview-with-dr-ray-blanchard/[/quote]
It does make me laugh that men have to go into these realms of explanation about why women don't fetishise their own sex.

They could, you know, just ask a couple.

What is highly sexualising fashion?
Crop tops? Tank tops? Shorts? Ripped jeans? Should teenage girls be forced to cover themselves head to toe in baggy sacks? Because I’m pretty sure that pervy men will happily interpret anything that reveals any scrap of the female form as indication that the wearer is a slutty little Lolita.
It really isn’t about what the teenager is wearing, it’s about what the man is thinking about what’s underneath the clothes. Responsibility must always be entirely on the adult.

I explained at LENGTH the parts I thought were grim and why.

Rather than acknowledge any of that. You say oh you took it wrong and you're making it up.

Nope.

You also don't realise that girls (and women) get sexually harrassed, obscene comments, sexual assault etc etc no matter WHAT THEY ARE WEARING.

That's also really out of line.

And men are more than capable of not sexually harassing women and girls.

Most don't. Most also don't see schoolgirls including older primary girls and think cor yummy. Are they a biological dead end? Or is your as soon as periods ready for fucking adult men IT'S BIOLOGY missing the point that irrespective of boobs growing periods until fully mature which takes ages, those girls are NOT a good choice for procreation as their bodies are not yet ready.

Maybe that why most men fancy GROWN UPS. want to fuck women. Young yes. 14 15 16 not good. That's still no excuse for harrassment. Which is often when girls are in school uniform which is a bit of a clue.

No you're talking ogling as soon as periods breasts. So from 10ish. Primary school.

No. You can't post a different thing and wave away what you said.

Is the followingof any interest to you whatsoever?

'Complications during pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death for 15–19-year-old girls globally. '

'Adolescent mothers (ages 10–19 years) face higher risks of eclampsia, puerperal endometritis, and systemic infections than women aged 20 to 24 years, and babies of adolescent mothers face higher risks of low birth weight, preterm delivery and severe neonatal conditions.'

Fucks your 'if there's grass on the pitch then play' or whatever it is. I have heard middle aged men say that in the pub a couple of times and all laugh. I'm sure you can guess what it means.

It's NOT a good reproductive strategy. Best chances of healthy offspring are with MATURE women.

You're previous posts aren't erased by your attempt at justification.

I have no clue what you think I said, but it doesn't seem particularly close to what I intended. You have a tendency to assume that other posters mean something that often, they don't.

That's not what you said at all though is it. What you said and the implications were awful. As per my posts.

What I am saying is that the unchangeable element that we have to work with is sexual reproduction. Once we have visible secondary sexual characteristics that will be noticed. For the exact same reason people will say here that it is so difficult to not notice someone's sex. The wiring, or lizard brain, or whatever you want to call it, notices these things and links them to fertility and reproduction.

Beyond that, we have all kinds of reasons to try and construct, as you say, what counts as a child. Certainly well beyond the beginnings of puberty at nine or ten, and in our society often a fair bit beyond that.

If we want to avoid as much as possible men making inappropriate comments to girls, or girls feeling too stressed about their changing status, or just men seeing quite young women as appropriate sexual partners, that has to be done quite carefully. The signals should be quite clear, not just overt ones like "this is illegal" but also the more subtle social ones.

Our society however is quite bad at the latter. We seem to be of two minds. On the one hand people flip out if anyone admits outright that it is completely biologically normal to be sexually attracted to a person with secondary sexual characteristics, even men being attracted to girls who are legally able to consent to sex is sometimes described as gross and abnormal. At the same time, we seem to think that it's ok to dress young girls as if they were women, or claim that teen girls should be free to wear highly sexualizing fashion without it impacting whether they are seen as appropriate sexual partners.

It's like we gaslight ourselves, and it makes the situation worse for girls, not better.

Surely not?!

I know you often join threads like this to give the 'alternative view'.

But I do think you've crossed a line here.

There was a boy at DD school who matured v early.

In final primary year he was v tall, voice had broken, build, facial features of adult man.

You would then say if he had at 11 had a man on the street say something like. I'd like to suck you're cock.
That's a totally different thing to if it were the other boys in the class who looked like children. Surely.

If your point was that how societies define child age is constructed then yes that's true.

However you go beyond that by saying that when it comes to girls and men and sex. Then it's so artificial as to be totally pointless and nature will naturally prevail.

It's there to try and reduce the harm done to girls. By men.

'Physically mature enough to be seen as women?...
you can't really do is turn back time and change how mammals notice fertile partners....'

MEN. you mean. Not everyone. Men.

How can you not have noticed that women are constantly trying to protect girls from men? Are pushing for girls to not be seen as fertile partners to men? Partners means relationship or sex partner. Fertile means old enough for impregnation.
Results.
Child marriage. IE rape. And the massive consequences of having a baby with a body that is not developed enough to really cope with it.
Girls being coerced, raped, assaulted, groomed, sold for sex.
And naturally due to what their bodies are like society treats them the same as women. What was she wearing/ why was she there/ does she have previous sexual experience, etc. Children. Who are subjected to awful things almost always be men because they 'look old enough'. And society says. Well she certainly looks old enough!

'Society can provide lots of scaffolding to say, these girls are to be treated as children, but not at the same time as denying that they need to do so because they are starting to not be children.'

Who denies that? It's the whole point! And the idea that girls still at primary school are becoming not children is just nasty.

You are responding, I assume due to what your post says, to my previous post. You must have read it at least.

And you see fit to post that. With tone of apparently explaining the situation to someone who needs the facts started to them, because they are a bit deluded.

I have pointed out issues with what happens. Things like-

• It can start when girls are as young as 9 or 10

• Girls have for a long time been so uncomfortable with the total change in the way loads of men behave towards them when breasts start to be apparent. I mentioned obscene comments from random strangers on the street. Those words.

• Society in general taking the view that girls wearing various things are doing it on purpose because they want sexual attention from any and all men

Tbc

I skimmed your post Jessie and I'm not sure how it relates to the thread.

The OP was about fetishes and currently it's gone into girls, puberty, breasts. Currently talk is mainly about girls, puberty, breasts. Which stemmed from a belief someone had about women having social position decided by breast size.

Can you explain how your post relates to the topic?

All I got was a load of stuff about your sex life, and your perception of current views amongst trans people around gender presentation.

Oh and saying 'the trans' is really out of order. People is the word you are looking for.

I mean, I am not sure Cheez that there is any way around the fact that when girls start to develop secondary sexual characteristics, they start to be seen in a different way. That's partly why we have them.

I am not sure, with girls, that we do them any favours by trying to avoid telling them that when they are physically mature enough to be perceived as women that what they wear can exaggerate or minimize that. It's possible to choose either, but what you can't really do is turn back time and change how mammals notice fertile partners.

Society can provide lots of scaffolding to say, these girls are to be treated as children, but not at the same time as denying that they need to do so because they are starting to not be children.

It was definitely in grease. As well. That's where I know it from. Can't be the only one!

Different silhouettes have certainly dominated in various eras. You might be right about a shift in body type, I notice some of the trendy clothing seems to be moving towards 90s styles, my 13 year old looks like she should be at a Nirvana concert while my 16 year old seems to be in kind of Twin Peaks mode.

It seems to be younger teens who are sometimes so obsessed with breast size. Probably because they are uneven in their development, with some farther along and others still childlike, and they also are young enough they don't really understand all the factors involved in being attractive.