|
Pantykin Community: Wearing panties is just a minor fetish? - Pantykin Community
Jump to content
Wearing panties is just a minor fetish?
-
Group:
Admin
-
Posts:
8,480
-
Joined:
14-August 03
-
Gender:Male
-
Location:Europe
-
Interests:Cruising for sex in panties, webmaster of this site and trying to build a genuine active community, travel, collectables, motorcycles, and bargain hunting at flea markets etc
-
Sexuality:Bi-sexual
Posted 27 March 2005 - 12:57 AM
This is the official web site of "Talk Sex with Sue" with Sue Johanson.
Now I am not familiar with Canadian TV but Sue apparently is on Oxygen TV. Anyway I was reading the forum and noticed one or two postings dealing with the issue of men who wear panties and although most of the advice in reply to other issues was very helpful, I thought in this particular area I should tell Sue about our little community here at pantykin.com which could offer help advice to those who are concerned/worried etc about this "Minor Fetish" .
Now you cannot post on the FORUM so I emailed Sue with a short note which you can read HERE My mistake  I addressed the message to Sue apparently it's the webmaster who offers advice, I assumed like myself Sue was the webmaster.
My thoughts are firstly advice is just a personal opinion which can be influenced by many factors.
Secondly is it just simply the case that the wearing of panties by men, is just a minor fetish? as sex advisors/webmasters would have us believe.
Stay cool 
#2
Guest_pinkundies1_*
Posted 27 March 2005 - 01:43 AM
yes, advice is not scientific fact. Even scientific fact is not always scientific fact - one year we hear that not eating enough broccoli results in alzheimers disease, then the next we are told too much broccoli can increase your chances of contracting bovine spongiform encephalopaphy.
if i listened to all of the opinions and advice out there i would end up a headcase (perhaps i already am! perhaps i need to start listening to advice!) . there are people who i know and work with, who dont look very highly apon me because of my womanly preferences, but i disregard adverse opinion.
as far as wearing womens underwear being a minor fetish, im not even sure what you would class as fetish - isnt that more in line with pvc, leather masks with zips or billliard balls in the mouth( a la the gimp), s&m etc?. for me, the wearing of womens underwear is a lifestyle choice, and has been a big part of my life for many years
id like to know where a lot of these so called sex advisors, therapists and advice dispensers got their qaulifications from. the answer is, most of them aren't qaulified and that their advice is as you say, pantyholic, personal opinion.
-
Group:
Admin
-
Posts:
8,480
-
Joined:
14-August 03
-
Gender:Male
-
Location:Europe
-
Interests:Cruising for sex in panties, webmaster of this site and trying to build a genuine active community, travel, collectables, motorcycles, and bargain hunting at flea markets etc
-
Sexuality:Bi-sexual
Posted 27 March 2005 - 10:43 AM
Yes I agree, I just have a problem with the word Fetish, I use it sometimes but It's not one I'm comfortable with.
I think to the average lay man it portrays someone as being dirty, kinky, perverted, weird, which are all negativie words to the clean living brigade, or at least those that like to think they are, whatever that is.
I would like to see advisors use the word interest, or maybe there is a more appropiate word that would help give people more tolerance? I dunno.
The original meaning of the word feish is "A charm superstitiously believed to embody magical powers" ain't that something!
#4
Guest_sheerpanties_*
Posted 27 March 2005 - 12:02 PM
there are many people with a fetish...in fact i would say all.....so we love wearing panties and posting our pix . why do we do this? because we love it,the feel of silky panties on our bottoms and bundles( and we also love other pantie babes)....
so what!!...we could be drunken people beaters including wives...i love panties and
sissyboys and if that is the biggest, baddest thing i do in my life i will get through the pearly gates........................BYE XXXXX
#5
Guest_Anna_*
Posted 27 March 2005 - 10:32 PM
Quote Yes I agree, I just have a problem with the word Fetish, I use it sometimes but It's not one I'm comfortable with.
I think to the average lay man it portrays someone as being dirty, kinky, perverted, weird, which are all negativie words to the clean living brigade, or at least those that like to think they are, whatever that is.
I feel their use of the term lacks a certain precision. I can't judge whether or not it's a fetish for any individual. Just about anything CAN be or become a fetish.
But the strict definition of the term is that a fetishist can ONLY gain sexual release through some kind of ritual that involves the fetish object. That the fetish object effectively replaces a human sexual partner. It's my impression that few here, or anywhere I've looked, really fit this mold.
Frankly, I've come to doubt over time whether this is true of more than a tiny percentage of people, men especially. And don't get me started about the selective blindness that exists in terming many behaviors most often found in men as "fetish" while something of similar shape and degree (shoes, general fashion, lipstick, collecting facial moisturizers by the dozens) is NOT a fetish?
The perjorative use of the term is (to me) just another way that men are pushed into a box by society, and coerced into any number of things (warfare, blood sports, danger seeking, toxic marriages) that are very bad for them as individuals (but may serve some social purpose that's at least considered necessary, whether it truly is or is not.
:soapbox off:
-
Group:
Member.
-
Posts:
357
-
Joined:
02-March 05
-
Gender:Male
-
Interests:Panties, Panties and more Panties! Anything Feminine or Sexy.
-
Sexuality:Bi-sexual
Posted 28 March 2005 - 01:08 AM
Call it what you will, I will still wear my panties because it's what I like to do and have done for most of my adult life. If you want to classify it a "fetish" then so be it. If you want to call in kinky or "Gay" (and I don't like that term the most), or if you want to call it abnormal, that is NOT MY PROBLEM!! After all, what is normal? To me, normal is slipping on my panties every morning when I dress. Always has been and will always be the "normal" thing to do. When society stops trying to classify everyone's differences to justify their own feelings and thoughts then maybe there will be less hatred and more love.
O.K., I'm off MY soapbox...
"Pampered Panty Princess "
-
Group:
Admin
-
Posts:
8,480
-
Joined:
14-August 03
-
Gender:Male
-
Location:Europe
-
Interests:Cruising for sex in panties, webmaster of this site and trying to build a genuine active community, travel, collectables, motorcycles, and bargain hunting at flea markets etc
-
Sexuality:Bi-sexual
Posted 28 March 2005 - 01:17 AM
Quote The perjorative use of the term is (to me) just another way that men are pushed into a box by society, and coerced into any number of things (warfare, blood sports, danger seeking, toxic marriages) that are very bad for them as individuals (but may serve some social purpose that's at least considered necessary, whether it truly is or is not.
:soapbox off:
Controlled and contained by enforced responsibilties maybe. Everything is geared to wanting to know where you are, what you are doing, where you are going, and most importantly what you are earning.
Give and encourage them to take up responsibilities like credit, marriage, children and the map to becoming the perfect governable citizen. But yes, they are losing their hold, soon we will witness world wide revolution, Enough of this Bullshit and illusions of democracy the people shall cry as they march together in their fetish apparel.
Seriously tho don't you sometimes thank the lucky stars your not belonging to this generation, I know I do ...... except when I see a young filly maybe, but I'm not falling for that one again 
-
Group:
Member.
-
Posts:
1,086
-
Joined:
24-April 04
-
Gender:Male
-
Sexuality:Bi-sexual
Posted 28 March 2005 - 08:53 AM
Quote ... The original meaning of the word feish is "A charm superstitiously believed to embody magical powers" ain't that something!
If that is the real meaning of the word "Fetish" I have no problem with it being connected with the wonderful feelings I get when I slip into my Ultra Feminine Panties .... it is magical even heavenly ...
But then there are many other accepted uses connected with the word (see below) and none of them in my opinion apply so is my desire to wear feminine lingerie and other items a Fetish or not ... I am not educated enough to be certain and it really doesn't matter to me as long as it never becomes illegal ... I wear feminine clothing because it makes me feel better about myself .. prettier, desirable, and yes sexy ... is that wrong I hope not .. I hope it is never wrong for a person to do anything to improve their self-esteem as long as it doesn't hurt or harm another person.
GOD doesn't object and neither should MAN.
Your Sister-n-HER-Panties,
Michelle Jo
Anyway here is the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition definition:
fet·ish also fet·ich (fĕt'ĭsh, fē'tĭsh) n.
1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.
2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality.
3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.
#9
Guest_Anna_*
Posted 31 March 2005 - 02:08 AM
Pantyholic, on Mar 27 2005, 09:12 PM, said: Seriously tho don't you sometimes thank the lucky stars your not belonging to this generation, I know I do ...... except when I see a young filly maybe, but I'm not falling for that one again
Not quite sure I'm following you.
I tend to envy my younger brother (12 years younger) and his generation, even where he lives (Salt Lake City). Given my druthers, though, I would wish that I had been born about 20 years or so later, and gone to the same progressive college I went to back when I did go to college. My sense is that gender exp ression runs a pretty wide range. Yes, there is the much-promoted public image of the present young generation as uptight idiots, but my sense is that the reality is something very, very different.
The differences are subtle, but I can't really imagine, for instance, gay, lesbian and transgendered high school students getting the degree of institutional support that they get today, at least in the state where I live. Which is not to say they have it easier. I just think that if I were 18 or 20 now, I might be far more likely to act on my inclinations, and have come out more publicly, and avoided a lot of wasted time and some of the pain that my self-deceptions have caused to others (and to myself).
At this stage, though there's a great part of me that feels (and I certainly seem to test) as transsexual, realistically speaking, the outcome of hormones etc. would not be particularly good at my age -- at least it is certain it would have been a lot better had I had the determination to begin when I was in my late teens to early 20s.
I knew in my heart then that this is what I wanted, I doubt I would have thought myself into so many knots, if nothing else. I mean, I knew about Christine Jorgenson from as early as 10, and definitely felt a stab of recognition when I read her story and those of others like her (rare though it was at the time that they received press attention). If nothing else, were I 16 or 18 now, there would be an entirely different level of information out there (including the suspicions among some researchers that there is in fact a particular physical brain structure that is identical in size between women, post-op and pre-op M2F transsexuals, that does not carry over into other populations (including, for instance, men who receive high dosage estrogen treatments for advanced prostate cancer).
Anyway, I'm probably not even answering the question that was asked.
FWIW, I do remind myself to be glad in some ways that I wasn't born 10 or 20 years earlier . . . though I wouldn't have minded if someone had decided I was gay and tried to "treat" me with estrogen injections, as they did with Alan Turing. My luck, though, I would have run into those who felt that gayness could be cured with testosterone, which I'm fairly sure would have made me about as suicidal as the estrogen apparently made Turing.
#10
Guest_Anna_*
Posted 31 March 2005 - 02:39 AM
Michelle_Jo, on Mar 28 2005, 04:48 AM, said: Anyway here is the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition definition:
fet·ish also fet·ich (fĕt'ĭsh, fē'tĭsh) n.
1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.
2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality.
3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.
I wouldn't trust the dictionary, at least not for the technical definition. For the current clinical description, see the current edition of the DSM (Diagnostic Standards Manual), presently known as DSM-IVR ("R" for revised). Naturally, as others pointed out already, "fetish" means something again quite different -- chiefly a particular fashion statement -- in BDSM and pr0n circles, just as Shemale and transvestite have their own bizarre twists when seen on a video box or pr0n mag/site.
A more or less plain English (but also very Orthodox vanilla and to my view largely useless) overview of paraphilias can be found (among other places I'm sure) at Female Sexual Arousal.
What appears to be a more "kink-friendly" overview (and critique) of DSM definitions that often verge on pure value judgements appears at Paraphilia and Distress in DSM-IV. Dig into it and there is lots, lots more -- but I'll try not to get boring here.
Personally, I particularly like what Louise Kaplan had to say on the subject, but, aside from the movie based loosely on her book (non-fiction, dense, and not as a few of the movie reviews mislabel it, a novel) there appears to be little immediately findable on the Web to give one a sense of her thesis and critique of the "orthodox" definitions of fetish, paraphilias and "perversions" in general. Apparently, a lot of feminist critics did not want much to hear what she was trying to say in her book, Female Perversions, at least that's how I recall it from back when I read it, which I could swear had to have been no less than 10 years ago, considering where I know I lived and the fact that my first daughter could not have been more than a year old at the time.
-
Group:
Admin
-
Posts:
8,480
-
Joined:
14-August 03
-
Gender:Male
-
Location:Europe
-
Interests:Cruising for sex in panties, webmaster of this site and trying to build a genuine active community, travel, collectables, motorcycles, and bargain hunting at flea markets etc
-
Sexuality:Bi-sexual
Posted 31 March 2005 - 03:59 AM
ebbixx, on Mar 31 2005, 04:03 AM, said: Not quite sure I'm following you.
Sorry ebbixx I was refering to the Big Brother aspect and quality of freedom in general as opposed to the acceptance side of things. In the UK last I heard there was talk of identity cards, these would be voluntary, at first, then compulsory. If you don't get one, and you are caught without one it's a criminal offence.
Whether the foundations for this scheme has changed or not I don't know, but in any case I'm sure it won't be infinging upon my liberty.
These were\are going to be biometric, to what degree who knows, ( you know how these things are made to appear rosey and innocent smeared in political bullshit) but I suppose finger prints, and eye prints would be a safe bet.
You had to commit a crime to get your finger prints on file (when I was a nipper), and if you were found innocent, those records had to be destroyed, but whether that was the case or not is another story.
The madness of all this is that the passport will still be required! talking of which when we were conned into joining the European Union (Germany) Passports would not be needed in order to travel to member states. You try crossing the channel to France for a bottle of cheap plonk without one.
I'm having a bit of a rant here, but I really don't envy the youth of today who will be watched wherever they go, whatever they do, and whomever with.
I wonder if it will be any quicker to get through passport control at Miami Airport 
#12
Guest_Anna_*
Posted 31 March 2005 - 02:44 PM
Pantyholic, on Mar 30 2005, 11:54 PM, said: The madness of all this is that the passport will still be required! talking of which when we were conned into joining the European Union (Germany) Passports would not be needed in order to travel to member states. You try crossing the channel to France for a bottle of cheap plonk without one.
I'm having a bit of a rant here, but I really don't envy the youth of today who will be watched wherever they go, whatever they do, and whomever with.
I wonder if it will be any quicker to get through passport control at Miami Airport
My passport expired a few years back anyhow. I've been thinking of renewing it and doing some travelling as long as I still have some cash. But the whole annoyance factor of airports has me more than a little ambivalent (maybe I should be more, but I don't actually tend to worry so much about being a "target" the way I'm sure many US citizens do right now.
Puzzled about the prints part. Here in the US, at least some states required a set of prints when you got your first driver's licence, though I'm sure that's not universal. However, the state where I learned did take a set (albeit in a pre-Bill Gates world) . . . it would be interesting to know whether or not they are still able to access them. Since I also served in the military, there's another set of prints. There are quite a few jobs, companies and such that tend to require fingerprints at the very least -- given where I once worked, for all I know they have a lot more detailed biometric data on me than just prints. Just one more reason I never steal panties. 
I agree about the invasion of privacy issues, but also share your doubts that any of this is going to make US customs for non-US citizens any more efficient, or any less insulting. Then again, don't get me started on the nightmare we had once getting from Budapest to Philadelphia. Though actually, my rusty high school German was good enough, as it turned out to get us a first class upgrade on the Lufthansa "long leg" of the flight, and we probably left Frankfurt Airport a lot sooner than most of our fellow passengers coming on what was supposed to have been a Lufthansa jet, but was switched at the last minute to a Malev, Soviet 737 clone -- it's been a long time, so I no longer recall the make of that plane, only that it seemed only partially pressurized compared to any 737 I'd flown on before or after.
Anyway, I think I follow better now, though I'm not sure what difference it makes in this climate just what generation I belong to, other than, just as in a good part of the '70s, many Americans are afraid to leave their own borders anyway (and even under the best conditions, not many travel abroad without dragging along something like a big umbilical cord to US culture). Hopefully, the paranoia will eventually pass as all things do. Maybe about the same time certain of our "leaders" give up on waiting for God's "big bailout," and realize, whether God is coming tommorrow at 0730 GMT or never ever, they and we have a responsibility of stewardship for what's still left of the planet. Stop me! (deep breath) Okay. Logorrhea over.
-
Group:
Member.
-
Posts:
357
-
Joined:
02-March 05
-
Gender:Male
-
Interests:Panties, Panties and more Panties! Anything Feminine or Sexy.
-
Sexuality:Bi-sexual
Posted 01 April 2005 - 02:29 AM
fet·ish also fet·ich (fĕt'ĭsh, fē'tĭsh) n.
1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.
2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality.
3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.
Based on #4 above, visiting pantykin.com is a FETISH!! 
"Pampered Panty Princess "
-
Group:
Admin
-
Posts:
8,480
-
Joined:
14-August 03
-
Gender:Male
-
Location:Europe
-
Interests:Cruising for sex in panties, webmaster of this site and trying to build a genuine active community, travel, collectables, motorcycles, and bargain hunting at flea markets etc
-
Sexuality:Bi-sexual
Posted 01 April 2005 - 02:38 AM
yes sissyP you fetishist you. Actually looking at the logs, we have had 2 referalls from that site. So what does that tell you?
Your excessive behaviour is safe
#15
Guest_Nic_Kers_*
Posted 08 April 2005 - 06:11 AM
fetish I'm quoting from The Oxford English Dictionary, which is the bible of dictionaries in my humble opinion...
1 [I]Pyschol.[I] a thing abnormally stimulating or attracting sexual desire.
2 an inanimate object worshipped by primitive peoples for its supposed magical powers or as being inhabited by a spirit.
3 A thing evoking irrational devotion or respect.
There ya go!
I consider myself to be a dedicated [B]Knickerist![B]
Nic
#16
Guest_Anna_*
Posted 08 April 2005 - 06:44 PM
Nic_Kers, on Apr 8 2005, 02:06 AM, said: fetish I'm quoting from The Oxford English Dictionary, which is the bible of dictionaries in my humble opinion...
There ya go!
I take it you're quoting the Shorter Oxford? Given the brevity of the definitions, at least, that's my guess. Whether Shorter or the full version, I agree with your esteem of the OED, at least so far as general dictionaries go. (I find it's not entirely comprehensive for every use I might wish, when I need to trace slang and specific argots of specific subcultures, especially when it comes to the U.S.
In any case, fetishism or having a fetish is no longer, at least in US psychology and psychiatric terms, the "accepted" term. Paraphilia has become the more literally descriptive and (one hopes) less value-judgemental term, and is the only term that would be used (at least in writing) today in a medical, therapeutic setting.
Others have pointed out that in popular usage, as in pr0n, "fetish" tends to describe a fashion trend or statement, bridging the gaps between the "goth" world and the wider range of BDSM practices and costumes.
Of course, the "street" meaning of fetish probably still remains as the OED described it, but I have to wonder for how long that will remain the case?
#17
Guest_Nic_Kers_*
Posted 27 May 2005 - 07:14 AM
Absolutely right, Anna, I was using the Concise Oxford and interestingly 'paraphillia' isn't in it. My dictionary is the eighth edition printed in 1991.
By the way, I'm quite comfortable about my knickers and knicker-activities being considered a fetish because based on the Concise Oxford it does go some way to aptly describe my interest.
Nic
#18
Guest_gamester_40_*
Posted 30 May 2005 - 12:27 PM
This is not a reply to Nic Kers, I'm just using her reference to the Oxford.
I seem to be a little out of kilter with most others' opinions. To my mind our interest in panties is clearly a fetish and is found in this description. There is nothing rational about interest in panties, whether in men or women. How can our devotion to an inanimate object be rational? The rational person would have an androgenous interest in apparel.
It is possible to love sexual relations with men or women without the addition of stimuli like panties - millions of people do so. There are millions who've never seen lace, satin or silk. But if any of us can't put the panties aside then there is something irrational going on. A rational person would see panties as something to keep the inside of your trousers clean or for elastic support or some other practical function. Eroticism is antithetical to a rational mind but is is so much more exciting.
We give panties a deserved respect in this column but it is because we are infatuated with them for whatever reason. There are greater or lesser feelings of guilt or worry associated with this irrational behaviour but there is nothing intrinsically logical about arguing that our erotic, sensual, sexual and sexuality desires make wearing female apparel unremarkable.
From my point of view, I would rather be irrational and have my panties but if we are going to be intellectual we have to be dispassionate. We need to be more like pink and say 'I don't give a fuck, I enjoy them and want to continue doing so' but be less prone to dismissive, superficial statements in reply to reason and argument.
Nic_Kers, on Apr 8 2005, 05:06 PM, said: 0
fetish I'm quoting from The Oxford English Dictionary, which is the bible of dictionaries in my humble opinion...
3 A thing evoking irrational devotion or respect.
Nic
-
Group:
Member.
-
Posts:
1,086
-
Joined:
24-April 04
-
Gender:Male
-
Sexuality:Bi-sexual
Posted 31 May 2005 - 04:46 AM
gamester_40, on May 30 2005, 08:22 AM, said: We give panties a deserved respect in this column but it is because we are infatuated with them for whatever reason. There are greater or lesser feelings of guilt or worry associated with this irrational behaviour but there is nothing intrinsically logical about arguing that our erotic, sensual, sexual and sexuality desires make wearing female apparel unremarkable.
From my point of view, I would rather be irrational and have my panties but if we are going to be intellectual we have to be dispassionate. We need to be more like pink and say 'I don't give a fuck, I enjoy them and want to continue doing so' but be less prone to dismissive, superficial statements in reply to reason and argument.
Well put Gamester ... I too accept that my love for ultra feminine lingerie IS irrational and with that being said I too say "I don't give a F**K, it is my business and no one else's .. it hurts NO ONE and makes me feel better about myself " ... after all isn't the pursue of Positive Self-esteem what all of us are after?
So until someone can prove to me that my wearing and loving feminine items is hurting another person I am going to invoke my GOD give right to happiness and be as feminine and sexy and beautiful as I can ....
Your PROUD Sissy-Sister-n-Lingerie from Kansas,
Michelle Jo
#20
Guest_Anna_*
Posted 31 May 2005 - 05:11 PM
gamester_40, on May 30 2005, 09:22 AM, said: This is not a reply to Nic Kers, I'm just using her reference to the Oxford.
I seem to be a little out of kilter with most others' opinions. To my mind our interest in panties is clearly a fetish and is found in this description. There is nothing rational about interest in panties, whether in men or women. How can our devotion to an inanimate object be rational? The rational person would have an androgenous interest in apparel.
{snip}
From my point of view, I would rather be irrational and have my panties but if we are going to be intellectual we have to be dispassionate. We need to be more like pink and say 'I don't give a fuck, I enjoy them and want to continue doing so' but be less prone to dismissive, superficial statements in reply to reason and argument.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think the general trouble with the two words is that there is a common meaning and a technical/psychiatric meaning and they are not the same. The quote cited (from the OED) pretty fairly states the more common, generic meaning of the term.
But the psych meaning (at least in the past) was limited to describing individuals as fetishists whose sole pleasure came from touching, wearing or thinking about the fetish object. This is the meaning that has been replaced in recent years by the term, "paraphilia."
In the end, though, I'm not entirely convinced there can be very clear lines drawn between someone for whom panties (or any other "fetish" interest) are added spice in an otherwise "normal" sex life and those whose interest goes beyond that. So much depends, I think, on circumstance.
For some, what might well have remained a pleasant and harmless diversion might be pushed past that, at least in part due to patterns of rejection by an unsympathetic, insecure, homophobic or gynophobic partner.
Of course, there is also to be considered the choice of the individual in seeking out (or perhaps just "settling for") a partner who is unable or unwilling to deal with her partner's entire range of sexual interests. There's also whatever survives of the whole madonna-whore dynamic in str8 relationships, and its contribution to a culture that more or less requires separate female spheres of wives&mothers and mistresses&concubines&whores.
All that said, I agree in the everyday sense that "fetishist" is probably a fair if imprecise description for many (and perhaps most) of us. In that light, however, I'm still very interested in Louise Kaplan's book, Female Perversions. If you can't stand to read the book (which I'll admit tends to run dry as dust, especially in the sections that get very, very neo-Freudian) you could always see the marvelous (though a bit bizarre) movie based (loosely) on the book, starring my favorite overlooked contemporary actress, Tilda Swinton.
|
|
Sign In
Register
Help
MultiQuote
