sissy's?

bobroberts · Post by **bobroberts** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:12 am

not being a sissy myself, i'm always surprised at much of the content here is related to that fetish. my question to the sissies is whether that is tied into the t&d for you, or is it a seperate fetish? meaning, when you fantasize about sissification is it always in relation to denial, or not?
by the way, not judging or hating. just curious.

cheertina · Post by **cheertina** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 3:29 am

For me, at least, the fetishes are separate. However, dressing up is a major turn-on, so being teased while dressed is even more erotic than just being teased. Either can be fun on it's own, though.

Nwah · Post by **Nwah** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:33 am

cheertina wrote:For me, at least, the fetishes are separate. However, dressing up is a major turn-on, so being teased while dressed is even more erotic than just being teased. Either can be fun on it's own, though.

Well, that about sums it up.

Handcuffed · Post by **Handcuffed** » Sun Jul 17, 2011 9:26 pm

I think the connection of this "sissification" to T&D is due to long-standing cultural perception of a "pure" woman being chaste and devoid of sexuality. Not to suggest this is believed by most practitioners of the fetish, but it is implicit in its practice.

As it relates to domination, the "forced" aspect is important. In a culture where masculinity is so rigid, a man must be "forced" into femininity by a dominant.

I don't think there is a related "masculinization" fetish for women, because a woman acting like the traditional conception of masculinity is not so taboo anymore. You do see this fetish expressed in dominant women though; wearing penis-like strapons, etc. However, the female submissive cannot be "forced masculinized", because men are considered to be the more powerful gender, so this would be contrary to the role-play.

Sorry for the sociology rant.

bobroberts · Post by **bobroberts** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:39 am

actually, that's really interesting. the possibility of forced masculinization. i wonder what that would even look like?
so, we have 2 arguing that they are seperate fetishes, and 1 for tied up as the same. also, thanks for your answers.

Handcuffed · Post by **Handcuffed** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:57 am

bobroberts wrote:actually, that's really interesting. the possibility of forced masculinization. i wonder what that would even look like?
so, we have 2 arguing that they are seperate fetishes, and 1 for tied up as the same. also, thanks for your answers.

Not really saying they're the same, but I think there's a reason why they're often practiced in conjunction.

sissy's?

sissy's?

Re: sissy's?

Re: sissy's?

Re: sissy's?

Re: sissy's?

Re: sissy's?