Pantykin Community: Wearing panties is just a minor fetish? - Pantykin Community

My intellectual mind has no problem with viewing my interest in panties and femininity as aberrant and, therefore, application of the description "fetish" to my proclivity does not worry me at all. In that sense, I am as laconic about it all as pink is.

There is no doubt that physiologically sexual relations are expected to be conducted between adults of the different genders - not the same gender.

The difficulty in expressing such a view is that fragile minds cannot look past the statement of the bleeding obvious to observe that whilst this fact can be acknowledged it is not exclusive of other facts i.e. that same-sex sexual relations have existed throughout. These are clearly a factor of something more fundamental than physiology and I believe it is the psyche (some would make specious statements about genes (when there is little proof for assertions of the kind) at best, the genes are no more than a contributing element)).

Same sex relationships have been more or less tolerated from antiquity and we are in a more tolerant phase in this time but there is nothing "natural" when a bloke sticks his urethra into the anus of any other person (male or female). It is aberrant but is a driven response which the participants cannot explain or resist. Fellatio and cunnilingus are equally aberrant when seen from a physiological perspective.

The ONLY reason that we can voice the opinions that we do in this site is that the aberrant is so universal that enlightened thinkers are looking past the physiological to something more intrinsic in people and their humanistic findings resonate within our profligate society.

Individualism and society's fragmentation together with narcissistic opinions are a factor of modern society and foster a laissez fair approach to community, this allows previously unacceptable behaviour to be accepted as 'normal'.

Bringing this back to panties. Panties have nothing to do with sexual relations. If they had not been invented, our sexual urges would have fixed on something else as the symbol of our sexual imperative. Assuming this is a statement of incontrovertable logic then it must be true that for those of us who derive pleasure from the panties themselves, we are demonstrating a fetish response. We can dress it up as 'feeling comfortable' in our sexuality but we just taking pleasure in just looking at panties, buying them, feeling them, talking about them and showing them. If we weren't affected by a fetish response we'd just wear them because of their functionality and otherwise ignore them.

This great diatribe is nearly at an end and what I really think is that we should all stop taking ourselves so seriously, admit that there is something a little strange about our motivations and get on with it while we live in this more tolerant age.

gamester_40, on Jun 2 2005, 09:16 AM, said:

Quickie response, so you may have covered this further on, but I took exception to this particular statement. I happen to have a book of several hundred pages (Biological Exuberance is the title -- will add author if I happen across it soon) -- it documents all manner of sexual behavior in other species that does not appear to serve any particular reproductive purpose, yet I trust that in time we may discover that in fact there are some perfectly rational reasons why these behaviors are -- whilst certainly not in the majority -- still numerous enough to have been noted and recorded in some systematic way by biologists.

If species that do not instantly appear to have the complicated mental life of Homo sapiens happen to have such pattern of behavior happening "naturally" how arrogant is it of us humans to presume we know what is or is not "aberrant" in ourselves? After all, a great many so-called "primitive cultures have held at least some of "us" in particular esteem (or at least defined special roles for us that allowed our uniqueness to serve the community rather than serve as yet another germ for producing discontent and endless strife.

Will revise this later if I find that I've mistaken what you were saying here.

Frankly, though, I think that a good bit of the trouble is that we tend to overrate our collective intellect and allow it to lead us into fallacies that our hearts would warn us away from, were we only to listen to our hearts a little more and our "heads" a little less.

As for this being a more "tolerant" age, I don't really see the evidence. There are still many parts (at least of the US) where a diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" or "gender identity disorder" is merely shorthand for homosexuality, since the latter term no longer appears formally in the DSM-IV®. Apparently, the new diagnosis is used as a pretense for those who continue to support the "legitimacy" of "reparative therapy." The number of such practicioners is not insignificant, and they tend to work hand in glove with those religious sects that find it their mission to purge and persecute anyone they suspect (as a child or early teenager) of "homosexual tendencies."

Yes, there is more openess now than in other times in the past, though still less than there was, for instance, in Weimar Germany (or perhaps I should just say Berlin). I'll try not to go boring and political about the studies of violence against "gays" and how the vast majority of it is in fact violence against "aberrant" (if you still like the word) gender presentation.

Of course its a more tolerant age. It is not an open society but I didn't say it was. It's not a society where sexuality goes unremarked, but I didn't say it is. It's not a society where people who are open about their preferences cannot or would not be ostracized or marginalised - but I did not say they aren't! These are statements of degree. I said this was a more tolerant society than it used to be - and it is. (The cross-dressers who served in the temples of the mother goddess of antiquity don't prove your point on tolerance, they are hardly on point at all. Furthermore, most primitive cultures have been even more homophobic than anything we can imagine.)

More tolerant: Anti-discrimination laws exist for a start. But put aside the political responses, look at what pink has described about her situation - would she have been able to maintain that position 50 years ago? No! She would have probably been sacked as soon as her preferences were known, her private life would have been even more clandestine than now.

Just as my description of the more tolerant society is a study in degree and not a description of Nirvana so is my claim that panty fetish is aberrant. In the lineal graduation of aberration, panty fetish is at the low end and necrophilia and other aberrant sexually orientated acts are at the high end. Where does paedophilia come in? It is preposterous to explain panty fetish behaviour as normal in psychiatric jargon when none of us would accept all the other extremes into our pantheon of "normal". Anyway, psychiatrists are not claiming normalcy for these behaviours but trying to explain aberration!

It is perverse (I trust you see my play on words) in the extreme to justify by lamely saying something to the effect that all's natural (implying "normal") just because it occurs. Aberrant behaviour is a natural occurence but that doesn't detract from it being an aberration.

Having said this, I do not derogate from the proposition that some behaviours arise from some impelling agent that is beyond consciousness and that transgenders, gays and others deserve acceptance and that we should all become 'unconscious' of difference and more tolerant, if that is is what is required ("tolerance" itself is a word that implies that what is being tolerated is deviation).

Just because I am prepared to accept that this behaviour is aberrant doesn't mean that I am correct (of course not) but please don't try to dissuade me from the view. Even if its only a conceit, I find my aberration charming.