As a fetishist, my analysis of sexual arousal by feminization.

Speak English, Boy!

I got as far as 'semiotic' and had to reach for a dictionary (that's my problem)

When I came across the phrase 'culturally creative rhizomatic masculine-feminine oppositions' and just when I was reeling from that there followed 'prevalent niched symbols' I knew I was in post-modern bullshit land.

Ban nothing. Question everything.

Gotta agree with her

Sadarsa's picture

I gotta agree with Nicki on this one, after 3 paragraphs i stopped reading it. It's written like you're reporting on a college research project or something. Toss the academia out the window and speak plainly to plain folk. Otherwise it just sounds like you're speaking to puff up your own intellectual ego.

~Your only Limitation is your Imagination~

Perhaps to an extent

It may be possible to be clearer (I struggle a great deal), but I feel that there are many aspects that are not easily transposed without losing the intended meaning. Much does seem to be inherently technical, for example, the phenomenological difference between "being a female" (which I see as a common misunderstanding) and the "relation of oneself to femininity".

Succinct, but ...

something was lost in the transmission of your most cogent reply. Perhaps you could try again?

Red MacDonald

"The women's liberation

"The women's liberation movement cannot be seen as having succeeded in achieving true equality until there are as many female senior figures as there are males."

It's not a biological possibility without "utopianist" genetic engineering of the most drastically dystopian sort. The standard deviations of basic performance measures for males is much larger than the like standard deviation for females. Gender neutral standards would in fact result in males outnumbering females between 6 and 30 to one in the apex of performance for any profession for roughly the highest 10th centile. For activities such as ground combat, about 1 in 300 females can cut it as well as the average male in the military, and in the most extreme high performers in the military, you just aren't going to find women there even with gender neutral standards, because the sample size is so small, an individual women who could make it to that level won't enter the profession often enough for even one to be there contiguously in time.

It works both ways of course, there are more very dumb males than there are very dumb females...

The bell curve for females is narrower, for males, broader.

...yet somehow the real parity in the world never suits those whose real objective is arrogating untoward personal power to themselves.

The entire concept of autogynephilia is dealt with--it is nullified--by simply trying to imagine a woman born with testicles and penis trying to be really enthusiastic about making love with them, or with playing with them solo. How's that supposed to work well or easily? The woman will instead fantasize about having and employing the genitalia which to her own mind seems correct--she will fantasize about using and having between her own legs the correct set of genitals as her internal map of bodily expectation informs her to do.

Blanchard has no point worth addressing except to note and with having taken note dismissing it, his argument is perfectly circular and preposterous. It amounts to the notion that anyone born with male genitals cannot be female in a meaningful sense, therefore their fantasizing about having and employing female genitalia must be a mental illness, a "paraphilia". If you presume a non-biological explanation, of course disorders of thought are what remains to explain such fantasies and any action taken to actualize them, and of course then any surgery or hormonal treatment to meet the expectations of the "delusions" is out of the question wrong. Ergo, trans-eliminationism in the "feminist" and LGB(/T) movement.

Having pursued a theory in avoidance of known facts and one which is generically non-falsifiable, Blanchard is simply a quack; one being at best used, and worst willfully used for political ends--and should be attacked and destroyed as such, a political hack out to get what he can despite the harm he does.

The sadness of a person choosing to exist to do harm can barely be expressed.

Against both Autogynephilia & Crossdreaming

I do not adhere to Blanchard's theory, nor do I adhere to trans activists political appropriation of what is for the vast majority of persons, a harmless fetish without any inherent bearings on their sex/gender.

Blanchard may label certain trans persons as inauthentic, where Jack Molay labels mere fetishists as repressed transsexuals. Both are crude.

"I do not adhere to

"I do not adhere to Blanchard's theory"

Funny you place any credence in anything of the sort then.

"nor do I adhere to trans activists political appropriation of what is for the vast majority of persons, a harmless fetish without any inherent bearings on their sex/gender."

It is not yet clear from your writing, maybe I missed it, who you think is doing that or how.

"I see that trans identification in AGPs can be fully legitimate"

How generous of you, when in fact behavior described as "autogynephiliac" in a person experiencing GID is quite normal and usual female sexual dreaming and fantasizing.

If someone who is male biologically doesn't experience GID but finds pleasure in fantasizing about being female, why should that even be a fetish/paraphilia requiring any diagnosis, treatment, or even so much as a classification at all? Curiousity alone does not explain the tempest in the teapot.

"Parallel to this, Molay uses the transsexual/pervert antagonism to browbeat any opposition and to avoid addressing the actual and more complicated dynamics at work."

On the contrary, seeking to complicate the uncomplicated is a tactic used to gain influence as being the person(s) who "understand" the "complicated" thing.

It's not difficult to discern the real motivation, seeking influence and power in whatever way possible.

"It is not yet clear from

"It is not yet clear from your writing, maybe I missed it, who you think is doing that or how."

Jack Molay's "Crossdreaming" I have addressed previously in the blog.

"when in fact behavior described as "autogynephiliac" in a person experiencing GID is quite normal and usual female sexual dreaming and fantasizing."

Does my analysis describe the workings of the fantasies of autogynephiliacs(crossdreamers, transvestic fetishists etc)?

"If someone who is male biologically doesn't experience GID but finds pleasure in fantasizing about being female, why should that even be a fetish/paraphilia requiring any diagnosis, treatment, or even so much as a classification at all?"

If not because it is simply interesting, both AGP and crossdreaming are inadequate.

"On the contrary, seeking to complicate the uncomplicated is a tactic used to gain influence as being the person(s) who "understand" the "complicated" thing."

Perhaps you agree with Mr Molay's discourse. That one agrees that masochistic feminization fetishism is a guilt-bypassing psychosexual expression of female identity, otherwise one is a repressed transsexual. The very proposal that one may merely have a fetish is potential grounds for political suppression.

This Is Garbage

I've had enough of this.

You are talking garbage. Nothing you say makes any sense.

"If not because it is interesting, both AGP and crossdreaming are inadequate."

I could study this sentence until the Sun exploded and I still couldn't make any sense out of it. One thing I do know, it's illiterate nonsense. What the fuck do you really want to say?

I'm listening...

Ban nothing. Question everything.

The analysis of my fetish is

The analysis of my fetish interests me. Autogynephilia and Crossdreaming are inadequate representations of my fetish.

"Jack Molay's "Crossdreaming"

"Jack Molay's "Crossdreaming" I have addressed previously in the blog."

But without any directness, for example saying how he is wrong in 30 words or less.

"Does my analysis describe the workings of the fantasies of autogynephiliacs(crossdreamers, transvestic fetishists etc)?"

I can't tell by reading it.

"If not because it is simply interesting, both AGP and crossdreaming are inadequate."

And yet you keep using those terms.

"Perhaps you agree with Mr Molay's discourse."

Quite unlikely.

"That one agrees that masochistic feminization fetishism is a guilt-bypassing psychosexual expression of female identity, otherwise one is a repressed transsexual."

Could be in individual cases, but not likely a useful concept generically. Anytime you leave the usual, there are no generic useful concepts, there are barely any points to the compass. Pretending otherwise leads to such things as "goalkeeping" and "goalpost moving".

"The very proposal that one may merely have a fetish is potential grounds for political suppression."

A truism so obvious it is pointless to relate.

However, the whole point of the post-modern drivel style of writing you have adopted is to give power to the state and the "progressives" who imagine they will come to hold its reigns, and then the political suppression will begin in earnest.

Speak plainly, write plainly, it will be immensely to your advantage if your goals are honest. When your opponent means to rule by warping language arbitrarily, why give them the advantage of adopting their cant?

"Could be in individual

"Could be in individual cases, but not likely a useful concept generically. Anytime you leave the usual, there are no generic useful concepts, there are barely any points to the compass. Pretending otherwise leads to such things as "goalkeeping" and "goalpost moving"."

You seem to understand in this context.

"However, the whole point of the post-modern drivel style of writing you have adopted"

I am addressing something that is seemingly not commonsensical, an experience which is rather technical. The "post-modern" style you are referring to, whilst it does have it's excesses, what is usually the case is that the subjects presented are not commonsensical and is usually the case that the author wants the reader to think in new ways.

"Speak plainly, write plainly"

Therefore I am potentially not addressing the experience in question, perhaps at most cheaply referring to it through inadequate gestures.

People!

Just BTW, the plural of person really is people. The use of "persons" is one of the easiest ways to spot bullshit jargon, if that's not redundant!

Liz

Y'all are thinkin' too much!!!

Ole Ulfson's picture

Some, probably most of us have some fetishistic items that we are drawn to. But, it doesn't change the fact that most of us are just fighting to be who we were meant to be. Our desire to be true to ourselves is not a fetish.

Ole

fetish
 

fet·ish
[fet-ish, fee-tish] Show IPA noun

1.
an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.
2.
any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades.
3.
Psychology . any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.
Also, fet·ich.

Origin:
1605–15; earlier fateish < Portuguese feitiço charm, sorcery (noun), artificial (adj.) < Latin factīcius factitious; replacing fatisso, fetisso < Portuguese, as above

We are each exactly as God made us. God does not make mistakes!

Gender rights are the new civil rights!

"To answer the questions

"To answer the questions posed earlier:

Why do some quite masculine males who are clearly not at that extreme end of the feminine scale - tall, strong, aggressive and excelling in fields like engineering or the military - seek to undergo genital surgery and change their sex roles?

Why do some extremely feminine men and masculine women not seek to make the change?"

Because they feel the need to.

Because they do not feel the need to.

There is a fulsome explanation for their feeling or not feeling the need to, in that they are or are not comfortable with flesh they are born with. To presume other wise is to give either outward biology or manner of behavior a primacy in determining how people can be expected to act (with respect to what hormone doses and surgical procedure they should or shouldn't seek, now those are possible as a technology) they shouldn't have.

"Emasculation trauma, which very likely has a large bearing on autogynephilic behavior,"

That statement is supposed and not demonstrated with any universality, never mind yet without any salience.

"can affect young males who may be extremely feminine mentally and/or emotionally (as per standard human diversity)."

Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. For anyone who is transsexual and who is extremely feminine, I could find concern for a poor result/bad luck, or even an extreme phobia about needles, before emasculation trauma would be a plausible explanation for not seeking surgery. For someone who is in fact an extremely feminine male, and is happy to have their wedding tackle, why should emasculation trauma even enter be entertained as an explanation for their not wanting to part with it?

Why should an explanation be required?

I am far more interested in the notion that there must be a medical or legal pigeon hole into which every one can be stuffed.

It's not so.

"After much rejection they essentially change over in order to gain greater social acceptance as human beings."

You seriously proposing any statistically significant fraction of very feminine males in a Western setting have had SRS when they did not desire it in and of itself?

"The bottom line must always be a decided on the basis of whether transition will improve the patient's well being and functioning in society."

That was clear before, the issue is, in giving Blanchard the time of day, you are necessarily yielding to someone other than the patient primacy of agency in determining what will improvement will be. In even believing autogynephilia exists as anything like or descended from Blanchard's hypothesis, it is slanted against anything but the "talking cure", or even just warehousing the inconvenient person who lacks sufficient sedation.

" Aggressive internal conflict only plays into the hands of those who wish to undermine what are among the most (unfairly) downtrodden people in society."

"Who" are, not "what" are. An interesting slip.

"The existence of human diversity is the most compelling reason for cross-gender behaviour and identification to be properly accepted by governments and the public at large."

Except I've so far seen only an interest in capturing government to force persons to supplicate to the un-diverse opinion that everything once thought aberrant must now be smiled upon, and no conscience to the contrary is to be suffered to have any expression or agency.

"For instance, many people cannot understand why some masculine males - both physically and mentally - undergo gender reassignment, yet some highly feminine males happily retain an identity as gay (and sometimes heterosexual) men."

Many people? Who?

I can imagine many people wondering why people who cannot "pass" would attempt a feminine role socially, but have no problem believing all but no one has trouble understanding why highly feminine males retain a gay or heterosexual male role. It's because they don't think being highly feminine should equate to their wanting their genitals refashioned to be useful in any female fashion.

There's no mystery there.

The most reasonable intersection between "autogynphilia" and transsexualism is a null set. A biologically male transsexual "should" fantasize about being and acting in female role. It would be more peculiar if they didn't.

"Therefore the concept of

"Therefore the concept of being "a woman in a man's body" simply refers to a male possessing unusual levels of stereotypically feminine mental, emotional and/or physical characteristics.
However, these innate qualities will necessarily differ from that of natural females due to the dynamics of mating, as discussed below (and also in regard to upbringing, which is discussed later)."

So when medical technology removes that difference, would you feel the need to waltz 'round the mulberry bush again? Is "upbringing" required to be a natural female?

Let me see if I've distilled

Let me see if I've distilled the blog of yours.

You are biologically male?

You desire to remain biologically male?

You are comfortable presenting yourself as a male in society?

You like dressing in a stereotypically feminine manner?

You have some skill in doing so?

You are turned on by imagining yourself as female?

You are troubled by the fact some people don't like whatever your answers to those questions are?

These people are or are not seeking power over you in any way other than the way your giving them the time of day does so?

If you want me to ignore you after this, just put the word semiotics in your reply anywhere.

I'll check back in about an hour.

I'm quite the average guy

I'm quite the average guy (the photo is not of me).

I am not sexually aroused by "imagining myself as female", but rather by the masochistic association of myself to femininity.

"These people are or are not seeking power over you in any way other than the way your giving them the time of day does so?"

If you are referring to the post "Manipulation In The Crossdream Discourse", what I disagree with there is the assertion that the fetish in question is exclusively an expression of underlying transsexualism, and also a disagreement with the idea that dysphoria historically rooted in sexuality is necessarily illegitimate.

"I am not sexually aroused by

"I am not sexually aroused by "imagining myself as female", but rather by the masochistic association of myself to femininity."

So you experience acute discomfort with the possibility of but are turned on by wearing stereotypically female clothing and/or thinking about your self in stereotypically situations, and you enjoy the discomfort on some level? What do you do or imagine doing or experiencing which associates you with femininity?

"what I disagree with there is the assertion that the fetish in question is exclusively an expression of underlying transsexualism, and also a disagreement with the idea that dysphoria historically rooted in sexuality is necessarily illegitimate"

The first being Jack Molay's idea, and the next Blanchard's, correct?

If that's what you meant, do you see how much more clearly and plainly you could have said so?

You could just say Molay's argument ignores the certainty that some biologically male people are curious enough about feminine sexual experience to imagine it positively even in detail and with frequency without wanting to have their lives and flesh re-arranged so as to come as close as they can to in fact experiencing it, and some in fact imagine it quite negatively and as a dis-empowering or degrading thing, but they like that the same way some people like having their hands stepped on by people in leather hoods. Aside: Is that really a thing? I think that's a thing. I remember a few years ago where someone got their mistresses heel stuck in their chest, they paid her to walk on them, and then a medical show riffed on it a few months later on TV.

Blanchard at the most simplistic simply insists transsexualism can not be real, so they must really be men with a fetish. The theory is that hermetically, circularly stupid in a nutshell.

Why do you need to dress it up in post-modernism when it can be said that simply?

"So you experience acute

"So you experience acute discomfort with the possibility of but are turned on by wearing stereotypically female clothing and/or thinking about your self in stereotypically situations, and you enjoy the discomfort on some level? What do you do or imagine doing or experiencing which associates you with femininity?"

Sexual arousal obscures the psychological distress, but the distress is recognisable in the very themes of the fantasies.

"The first being Jack Molay's idea, and the next Blanchard's, correct?"

Both are Molay's ideas.

"You could just say Molay's argument ignores the certainty that some biologically male people are curious enough about feminine sexual experience to imagine it positively even in detail and with frequency without wanting to have their lives and flesh re-arranged"

I do not see that as representative of the fantasies in question. I want to address the fantasies concisely and universally. If I were to diagram it's semiotic structure.

"Blanchard at the most simplistic simply insists transsexualism can not be real, so they must really be men with a fetish. The theory is that hermetically, circularly stupid in a nutshell."

There are indeed transsexuals, and there are indeed simply fetishists, and there are indeed fetishists for which the fetish develops into genuinely serious gender dysphoric psychologies.

"Why do you need to dress it up in post-modernism when it can be said that simply?"

You are presupposing that everything is commonsensical, or at least can be transposed into commonsense. It can be the case that what is necessary to understand is the abstract underpinnings of familiar thought

From The Horse's Mouth

As someone for whom the word autogynephiliac probably best describes the place I occupy on the transgender spectrum - and after nearly six months as a member of this site I've learned enough to think it does qualify for that position - I'd like to offer something straight from the horse's mouth.

Sometimes I have an intense desire to experience life as a woman. It isn't that I feel trapped in the 'wrong' body, just that I have this overwhelming sense of opportunities missed.

The key word here is 'sometimes'. The feeling comes and goes.

As far as sexual fantasies are concerned, I tried to write about 'the faceless man' in my story Truth Or Consequences. For anyone who hasn't read it, the protagonist was a heterosexual male who finds himself in a female body.

It’s all very well to admire a man’s physique or daydream about sliding my fingers across his firm, taut skin, but there’s a person inside – and that person will want to paw me, breathe erotic suggestions into my ear and climb all over me whenever the mood takes him. Although I might come to enjoy such attention, the suitor I can imagine wining and dining me, sending me chocolates and flowers, saying I look nice in my new dress, whirling me around the dance floor, or even pulling me down on top of him, unzipping and unhooking me before I know what’s going on, is a generic figure with no more personality than a mannequin in a shop window. Give him a face or a voice, and even if he’s as attractive as Dave Compton the fantasy evaporates at once.

Autogynephilia is usually classed as a fetish. I'd find it difficult to argue with that. But if it allows people like me to empathise with those who've made a real commitment to transitioning it might not be such a bad thing.

Nicki

Ban nothing. Question everything.

interseting choice of words

in the original research, based upon discredited research? "autogynephilic" tends to point to a BBL mindset (Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence) and is thus very suspect. By any chance, was this from Alice Dreger? Does the term "transvestic fetishism disorder" show in the report, too? Do a search on J Michael Bailey, Ray Blanchard, and Anne Lawrence and you will see whay I mean. The whole theory is based on flawed science that points to itself as the "truth"; it is nothing more than a self-referential argument (I think therefore I am because I think). Heck, do a search on Jason Gregory and see what you get :P

Thank you for the in depth look at it. Take care,

Diana

It's All About Labels

Thanks for the post Diana

I only came across the term 'autogynephiliac' because I was researching a character for a new story. I thought 'hey, that sounds like me!'

Humans and our desire to label ourselves, eh?

Nicki is (very) slowly becoming more feminine. Whatever that means. She can be a confrontational so and so sometimes, as you may have noticed.

Ban nothing. Question everything.

Forgot to back up with other sources

Whilke everyone is different, and they do present some interesting hypotheses, the greater amount of bad science put forth ny BBL makes it hard to find. Andrea James has a very good site with more information located at Wannabes? The fetishization of transsexualism . And Lynn Conway has more at Transvestic fetishism, also called "autogynephilia" for a while by Blanchard, Bailey and Lawrence (BBL): Are these labels or stigmata. Also on Adrea's site, one can find her "Autogynephilia": a disputed diagnosis

There is much more information, as well as other links, at each site, so have fun exploring!

Hugs,
Diana

ps The best advice I can give to anyone about anything is this: Be true to yourself and you can be honest with anyone

to toss in my few cents

Sadarsa's picture

This will require brutal honesty on my part...

First of all let me say that i am 5'11" close to 200 pounds, i exercise regularly and am a Veteran of the Marines. I have no desire to cross-dress, nor do i find other males sexually attractive. To be blunt my body is by design attracted to the opposite sex.

For me clothes are clothes-- just because something is silky and in a cut designed for female bodies, they are still just scraps of cloth. They are gender neutral, we as a society assign our views to those clothes to be "feminine". A dress is a dress, it is *our* perception of it that makes it feminine. With such in mind, I tell you crossdressing has ZERO bearing on Transgenderism. So why is it so common for Transgendered people to crossdress? It is a simple outlet that allows the person to express their truest need... Does this mean all Crossdresser are Transgendered? No, not by a longshot.

We as males know that when a penis gets hard it forces the desire to penetrate upon us. Since i have *NO* desire to participate in anal sex (i find it repulsive) that would leave me left with vaginal. (As a Transgendered male i find relationships with the opposite sex, though fulfilling, leave me with a sense of quiet desperation and envy towards my partner.)

Because i take good care of myself and get exercise, due to testosterone i have a fair bit of muscle mass.

To equate aggression to masculinity is a mistake... To think that women are non-aggressive is about as foolish as Hitler's invasion of Russia, you *will* suffer if you underestimate them. There are quite a few women to whom i thank God every day do not possess a male body. The added muscle mass and increased aggression from testosterone would render them far too much to handle on my own, and they would most likely suffer for it as well, finding themselves in and out of prison.

With all these obviously male traits that i have.. If im not Transgendered then... What am I?

I struggle with it every day of my life, feeling as though I'm not who i appear to be. When i was younger i didnt understand what i was going through, and to be honest i was 18 before i even heard the term "sex change". I was 19 and in the military (which i joined hoping that it would somehow make a "Man" out of me) when i met my first Transvestite (and to be sadly honest it frightned me). Her presence forced me to into opening my eye's. I was 20 when it finally clicked in my head "AH! so *THAT's* the problem".

My lifelong delima now had a name. Transgendered.

I fought tooth and nail against it because i just "Knew" it was wrong. I'm almost 40 now, and I'm still "in the closet" about it. When i think of my options i just look in the mirror... and know... i will never be what i truly wish to be.

It's possible to win the lottery
It's possible to be selected as the first man to stand on Mars
It's possible to step outside and be inexplicably struck by lighting... 10 times...
It's possible that Madonna herself will ring my doorbell and *beg* me for a love child...
although the odds of any of that happening are astronomical, it is physically possible.

what's not possible?

To wake up tomorrow and magically be the girl i wish i was....

Sorry if this got a bit off topic, but i felt it needed said here.

~Your only Limitation is your Imagination~

I apologize that as usual,

I apologize that as usual, nothing has set my teeth more to itching than the duplicity inherent to pomo wordplay.

This Is Shinola

No need to apologise. You know Shinola when you see it, and that'll do for me.

Damn, can't find the link anywhere. Have this instead. It's off the same album.

http://youtu.be/x2n7wsDRAxo

Nicki

Ban nothing. Question everything.

Advice On Clearer Structure?

You're never going to get it. No one knows what you mean. Structure of what? Talk to us, like we're people in a bar.

Ban nothing. Question everything.

Try consistently having a

Try consistently having a subject, verb, and maybe object in your sentences. You've actually got a problem with that. I saw one sticking out without a subject, and I wouldn't swear it had a verb. Yeesh.

You feeling bored?

Been a couple of years since you last tossed this one out here wxhy. Doesn't appear much has changed or been learned in that time.

k

The poster

I'm still of the opinion, after the previous posting by this person, that he/she/it isn't a native English speaker.

In fact, I'm not entirely convinced that he/she/it is even human. I have seen arguments exactly like this generated by Artificial Intelligence programs available on the Internet. Some even claim to produce theses that would fool a professor in the subject.

Perhaps I'm maligning an innocent, and entirely serious, writer. In that case, you have my apologies. However, if you wish to have a discussion in English about matters such as these, it would help if you used a version of the language that most of us are familiar with.

Penny

Who is your audience?

It seems to me that this discussion is aimed at academic advisors judging a PhD thesis. The use of esoteric verbosity to illustrate how intellectually superior one might presume to be is required in that instance. Please take a page from Carl Sagen's and Neil DeGras Tyson's notebook on taking to the common man (and woman) (and those of us somewhere in between). These guys were very smart and academically accomplished, yet were able to speak in a manner that was easily understood without rubbing their academic superiority into the faces of their listeners.

Figure out who your audience is and tailor your message accordingly.

Now back to your normally scheduled programming.

Linda Jeffries

Linda Jeffries
Too soon old, too late smart.
Profile.jpg

So you are saying it may be a form of trolling?

Interesting, I think another poster kinda implied that. But you are absolutely right that if the person or 'it' really understood the language they would not keep asking what needed to be rephrased as you basically are saying 'all of it'.

Kim

To feminize a man or

masculinize a woman against their will is part and parcel to some T.G. fiction. In some, the 'petticoat punishment' is used to help, not hurt along with the more extreme.

    Stanman
May Your Light Forever Shine

I like Cheez Doodles

laika's picture

Then again, do I truly like Cheez Doodles, or do I simply like the IDEA of liking Cheez Doodles, because it shores up my concept of myself as a Cheez Doodle liker?

But what do I mean by "like", it's hardly an exact term, open to any manner of interpretations. Is there such a thing as liking, or is "liking" simply an absence of dislike in the same way that what we think of as cold is not actually thing at all but merely the absence or a lesser degree of heat?

And is there actually an "I" to be liking Cheez Doodles, or the idea of liking Cheez Doodles, or is the self merely an imposed or agreed upon (if one can truly agree) social construct regarding this body that may or may not like Cheez Doodles?

So many questions. It's a wonder I can even get out of bed in the morning.

Cheez Doodles

So do you think the workings of the fetish are adequately addressed?

Perhaps

Perhaps. But not by you. It seems that your understanding of the word "adequate" differs from that of the majority of readers.

Penny

K.I.S.S.

Endeavor in the charge to discourse waxing visibility.

~Taylor Ryan
My muse suffers from insomnia, and it keeps me up at night.