A lecture I had today!

I am currently taking a Women and Gender Studies course in university and tonight’s lecture was about the hyper-sexualisation of young girls and the inverse of the media’s tendency to advocate the infantilisation of grown ones. I have no idea how to feel about this and was hoping to branch out to fellow partakers of infantilisation of grown women. Mommies, Daddies and littles in particular. I do feel angry that we are being thrown under the bus and being made martyrs for wanting to live or express our sexuality in a particular way. Right now, it’s really all I feel and I want to know if I am justified in feeling this way.

Is what we’re doing damaging? Can it be?

Re: A lecture I had today!

Damaging? Silly. Hyper-feminism in action YET again.

As a Daddy, I am of the belief that every woman who is not decidedly a Domme type (and even some who are) has a little girl inside her somewhere that, under the right circumstances and with the right triggers, will make her presence known.

My wife/babygirl had no conception of this lifestyle until she met me. The first night we spent together, she knew she had a little.

Re: A lecture I had today!

I like to think this way as well. Whenever girls make passive little comments, it really catches my eye. I (unknowingly) began to baby my girlfriend at the start of our relationship and now she lets her little side out unknowingly as well. Whenever I point this out, she responds nervously and with trepidation though. She accepts that she has a little side but isn’t overjoyed by that fact.

On the other hand however, it’s hard to just write it off as hyper feminism. She did point out that for the first 5-6 years of life, all girls get in terms of descriptions to their personality is that they are cute, little girls (which aren’t personality descriptions being the point) and then at increasingly younger ages are shunted into being hot. Toddler sized “Future porn star” shirts being cited as evidence. So the psychological effects of not being allowed to be toddlers and genuine little girls manifest later (This sentence is more my musings based off prior observations and assessments). However, I still feel angry about how we are blamed (partially and indirectly) for girls and women’s sexuality being tainted and homogenized.

Re: A lecture I had today!

i’ve tried to be as concise as i can however their are places where in order to make myself understood fully, in anticipation of this been a hot button issue, i’ve found it necessary to explain in Philosophy Jargon my exact meaning. i have inclosed this is Spoiler tags because i find it easier to not use it. it’s a condom theory kind of deal

i’m not going to bash GS as a general concept. i believe there are any great number of factors by which one can dissect human interaction gender studies does that, though it could do so better. i will say that i do categorically reject all notions of “Critical Theory” that hold their origin in the Frankfurt school. That includes every manner of feminism or racial studies that sits Left of Continental interpretations of Liberalism on the Epistemic spectrum. the short cut to determine this is does it have as a necessary condition the ontological belief in the Matrix Of Domination and Hard Social Construction.

I was not there so i don’t know how the issue was presented but, i’ve taken Feminist Philosophy and Gender and Communications and they bisected on the topic in question.

i’d imagine that when your Prof. spoke on the topic of infantilization of grown women. what was meant is the belief that women as a whole are closer to child status then men and thus afforded less right to God given liberties. this is evidenced in magazine aids, tv, web, and on and on.

yes it happens. no argument here.
ought it not to ? certainly not! to a point.
marketing is a business. what sells, sells. i and most folk are at least pseudo-conscious that when we consume mainstream infantilization of grown women we are buying the fantasy. Red bull doesn’t make you better at X-games, drinking the “right” brand of beer won’t make your preferred highly trained team of athletes win the big game, and no, axe won’t be the deciding factor in consent to a sexual liaison. [ caveat: Hygiene may indeed, do hygene.] we buy fantasy. the people involved in that production are tact participants.

sure you can argue that if i wasn’t conditioned to buy it i wouldn’t. but, that’s like saying if i could walk instead of being confined to my wheelchair i’d enjoy running. fun thought experiment but, not within the conditions we’re dealing with so nonsensical to an objective truther.

certainly the non-consensual infantilization of grown women is a Categorical Moral Wrong.

infantilism as a lifestyle is not non-consensual, that is to say it’s is Consensual. when i expose someone’s Little there has to be so much trust their because they are consenting to for a time lose their adult status. (even to a degree so is a model who models in infantile poses)
i think the key to any Parent/Little relationship is though they may lose adult liberties they never lose their personhood they way true children do. and it is this loss of personhood that main stream Feminist fear with infantilization of grown women. as long as personhood is safeguarded no damage done.

but keep in mind this is coming from a Ethical Monothiest[christian], Hobbisian, with Categorical leanings. i am staunch supporter philosophical Classical Liberalism, so in post modern thought a Conservative Feminist and as such reject some of the necessary assumptions (or “truths” depending on which vocab you use ) the Mainstream/Left Feminism sit on.

now they can make martyrs but ABDL doesn’t fit the narrative. so they will have to twist it and say that infantilized women who don’t agree with the narrative are just too oppressed to understand they are oppressed…or is that because i’m sexist that i pointed that all out? :wink:

Re: A lecture I had today!

This topic is complex enough that I think, often, the persons involved have no idea what they’re even talking about.

The hyper-sexualization, or any sexualization of young girls is clearly wrong. However, nudity is not inherently sexual, that’s some crazy bullshit idea that spawned from the Victorian era. In warmer climates in millenia past, children would go sans clothes (because they would just ruin them) until they became an a youth. In the middle-ages, they’d just wear a big shirt with a belt tied around the middle. Clothes that are meant to provoke a sexual response are absolutely inappropriate though. Messages that provoke sexual connotations are equally reprehensible. What bothers me more than clothes is that pagent moms and dance moms are trying to make their children sexually appealing, to make them look older. That’s fucked up.

This is an entirely different issue, however, than infantilizing of adult women. Exactly how are grown women infantliized? If we me diminishing the appearance of secondary sex characteristics, I agree. A healthy bosom, pubic hair, hips, etc. are what makes a woman sexually exciting. The flat-chested, no hips, shaven model that women adore is very different from the ideal woman that most men describe in surveys. Women do not know what’s sexually exciting about women because, like men, most are straight. So they take the media’s word that flat lines are better. The media cannot overcome thousands of years of sexual programming, however, so most men still prefer curves and busts regardless of what the media tells us to like. Ironically, women are making themselves less sexually attractive to most men by trying to conform to the model standard because they believe in media and not nature.

Now, a woman with secondary sex characteristics wearing a diaper, holding a rattle, is not, in my opinion, infantilized at all. The sexual interest is in her body. The atmosphere promoting sexuality is a fetishism like any other fetish. Fetishism comes in flavors: childhood love (diapers, pacifiers, rattles), childhood punishment (switches, paddles, restraints, spanking), childhood tactile interest (rubber, leather, etc), watersports, etc.

I noticed something in common with all fetishes recently - I expect all derive from our first memorable experiences with sexual pleasure before we attained puberty. Consider - spanking occurs on sensitive genital errors, arousal is quite possible even for a kid. Diapers, rubbing against us, may form incorrect sexual attachments. All the urophiles out there usually remark how they “discovered” their interest after a major holding episode as kids. Rubber, latex, etc. was probably the first noticeable object that rubbed up against the junk of people who developed that interest. The difference, of course, is that pre-pubescence, there is no drive. That makes pre-puberty sexual stimulation feel safe - it lacks the success/failure anxiety of real coitus (because, on a biological level, coitus that does not end in pregnancy is failure). So, our anxiety ridden minds seek a way to feel that sexual release we had as children without the mental knowledge of the failure of coitus. Of course, this can never occur, because, post-puberty, we are always aware of whether we’re really having sex or not. I’ve begun to realize that fetishism is like chasing the dragon. You can never attain that first experience again. Wearing diapers will never thrill me again like it did when I was ten.

But, all that considered, fetishism -isn’t- infantlizing us if it’s added to real adult sexual relationships. It simply diminishes anxiety and helps us perform. It it ends in pregnancy, there is not necessarily a biological flaw inherent in fetishism. The diminished anxiety means we can engage in sex more frequently. However, if fetishism replaces our desire for sex or comes with physical damage, then it is a flaw. It’s no different that having a drink to work up the courage to sex, or wanting it to occur in a safe place. Fetishism, in its positive form, is just a method of coping with sexual anxiety.

TL; DR Making kids look grown-up when they’re not is wrong. Making woman look physically like kids (flat, shaven, etc.) is wrong. Dressing up a clearly adult woman in, from a social perspective “childish,” clothing isn’t fooling anybody and, if it makes both partners more comfortable, why not?

Anyone have any thoughts on that?

Re: A lecture I had today!

I agree with the earlier comments suggesting that the professor wasn’t referring to ageplay activities. I think what was referred to was marketing and cultural forces that idealize the late teenage years, eighteen or so, for women.

This principle applies on both ends of the age spectrum for women. So a child younger than eighteen are pushed further and further forward into that “age culture”. Whereas a older woman gets pushed further and further back into the eighteen year old “culture”.

Finally I largely agree with orderedchoastheory in his theory that knowing consent in a niche culture doesn’t relate to and or contribute to the cultural force.

However I do disagree with him about Hobbes and will gladly fight him to the death upon the subjct! And if I’m not mistaken if I have a monopoly of force in our local geographic area than my ethical and physical supremacy is assured. ;D