Perception, attraction, and ̶g̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶i̶t̶y̶

[PorcelainLark]

Anyway, maybe we should make a separate thread? This has gotten quite off-topic.

Can you start a new thread? I can't think of a name. I'll respond to you there.

This continues a digression from the thread asking female MAPs questions. For people coming in with less context, my motive was to test some hypotheses about the limits and objects of attraction primarily at the level of how the person is visually perceived to be attractive. So, for example, height tends to be attractive to heterosexual female teleiophiles, but not necessarily to heterosexual male teleiophiles, and children being shorter might suggest heterosexual females are less likely to be MAPs.
̶ ̶I̶ ̶h̶a̶d̶ ̶a̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶m̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶o̶u̶g̶h̶ ̶t̶y̶p̶o̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶a̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶M̶A̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶m̶a̶l̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶r̶d̶ ̶k̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶r̶o̶g̶y̶n̶y̶ ̶(̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶w̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶h̶o̶m̶o̶s̶e̶x̶u̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶g̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶)̶.̶ ̶ ̶̶̶T̶̶̶h̶̶̶i̶̶̶s̶̶̶ ̶̶̶w̶̶̶a̶̶̶s̶̶̶ ̶̶̶b̶̶̶a̶̶̶s̶̶̶e̶̶̶d̶̶̶ ̶̶̶o̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶r̶̶̶t̶̶̶i̶̶̶c̶̶̶l̶̶̶e̶̶̶ ̶̶̶d̶̶̶i̶̶̶s̶̶̶c̶̶̶u̶̶̶s̶̶̶s̶̶̶i̶̶̶n̶̶̶g̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶t̶̶̶y̶̶̶p̶̶̶i̶̶̶c̶̶̶a̶̶̶l̶̶̶ ̶̶̶p̶̶̶a̶̶̶r̶̶̶e̶̶̶n̶̶̶t̶̶̶a̶̶̶l̶̶̶ ̶̶̶b̶̶̶e̶̶̶h̶̶̶a̶̶̶v̶̶̶i̶̶̶o̶̶̶r̶̶̶ ̶̶̶i̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶r̶̶̶a̶̶̶t̶̶̶s̶̶̶,̶̶̶ ̶̶̶w̶̶̶h̶̶̶i̶̶̶c̶̶̶h̶̶̶ ̶̶̶I̶̶̶'̶̶̶v̶̶̶e̶̶̶ ̶̶̶h̶̶̶a̶̶̶d̶̶̶ ̶̶̶d̶̶̶i̶̶̶f̶̶̶f̶̶̶i̶̶̶c̶̶̶u̶̶̶l̶̶̶t̶̶̶y̶̶̶ ̶̶̶f̶̶̶i̶̶̶n̶̶̶d̶̶̶i̶̶̶n̶̶̶g̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶g̶̶̶a̶̶̶i̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶(̶̶̶i̶̶̶t̶̶̶ ̶̶̶m̶̶̶a̶̶̶y̶̶̶ ̶̶̶h̶̶̶a̶̶̶v̶̶̶e̶̶̶ ̶̶̶b̶̶̶e̶̶̶e̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶ ̶̶̶G̶̶̶.̶̶̶ ̶̶̶B̶̶̶r̶̶̶u̶̶̶c̶̶̶e̶̶̶ ̶̶̶P̶̶̶f̶̶̶a̶̶̶f̶̶̶f̶̶̶,̶̶̶ ̶̶̶o̶̶̶r̶̶̶ ̶̶̶N̶̶̶u̶̶̶m̶̶̶a̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶&̶̶̶ ̶̶̶I̶̶̶n̶̶̶s̶̶̶e̶̶̶l̶̶̶ ̶̶̶t̶̶̶a̶̶̶l̶̶̶k̶̶̶i̶̶̶n̶̶̶g̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶b̶̶̶o̶̶̶u̶̶̶t̶̶̶ ̶̶̶l̶̶̶e̶̶̶s̶̶̶i̶̶̶o̶̶̶n̶̶̶s̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶n̶̶̶d̶̶̶ ̶̶̶s̶̶̶t̶̶̶i̶̶̶m̶̶̶u̶̶̶l̶̶̶a̶̶̶t̶̶̶i̶̶̶o̶̶̶n̶̶̶s̶̶̶ ̶̶̶o̶̶̶f̶̶̶ ̶̶̶t̶̶̶h̶̶̶e̶̶̶ ̶̶̶m̶̶̶e̶̶̶d̶̶̶i̶̶̶a̶̶̶l̶̶̶ ̶̶̶p̶̶̶r̶̶̶e̶̶̶o̶̶̶p̶̶̶t̶̶̶i̶̶̶c̶̶̶ ̶̶̶a̶̶̶r̶̶̶e̶̶̶a̶̶̶)̶̶̶ ̶̶̶i̶̶̶t̶̶̶s̶̶̶ ̶̶̶c̶̶̶o̶̶̶n̶̶̶n̶̶̶e̶̶̶c̶̶̶t̶̶̶i̶̶̶o̶̶̶n̶̶̶ ̶̶̶t̶̶̶o̶̶̶ ̶ .̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶p̶a̶r̶t̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶y̶p̶o̶l̶o̶g̶y̶ ̶c̶a̶m̶e̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶d̶ ̶n̶u̶c̶l̶e̶u̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶i̶a̶ ̶t̶e̶r̶m̶i̶n̶a̶l̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶l̶a̶y̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶r̶o̶l̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶b̶o̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶g̶e̶n̶d̶e̶r̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶p̶e̶d̶o̶p̶h̶i̶l̶i̶a̶;̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶C̶a̶n̶t̶o̶r̶'̶s̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶a̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶p̶e̶d̶o̶p̶h̶i̶l̶i̶a̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶d̶u̶e̶ ̶c̶r̶o̶s̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶n̶u̶r̶t̶u̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶e̶r̶o̶t̶i̶c̶ ̶l̶o̶v̶e̶.̶ ̶ (While trying to track the information down and revisiting the stuff I had remembered, I realized I had misunderstood this. The maternal behavior came from applying estrogen to male rats, and the role of the BNST is different in pedophiles and transgender people since a reduction in size doesn't necessarily mean a person is more or less like the opposite gender, I think.)

Feel free to use this thread to discuss the role of visual perception in MA (as it contrasts to teleiophilic attractions), from a psychological and/or scientific point of view. Note that I when I say perception, I don't mean cultural attitudes, opinions, or perspectives; I mean something much more immediate and concrete, like the process of hearing sounds.

[WavesInEternity]

I based my original ideal AoA on the Tanner scale. The empirical observation came first, the introspection/theorizing came afterwards.

I'd also include the Tanner scale in what I call "theories". What I refer to as "empirical observations" is a completely different matter, involving things I no longer do online but once did out of curiosity, long ago. I really can't say more.

It could be because you hadn't see female genitalia with hair. When I was a kid, I often saw women and girls naked. For a while, I had no idea what female genitalia actually looked like because I initially had only seen adult women with pubic hair. Consider that our knowledge of anatomy isn't a priori, for example, Henry Darger drew girls with penises, I assume it was because he lived in a society that was very prudish about nudity and so had never seen women or girls naked. Likewise, how we analogize the opposite sex to our own sex through imagination: e.g. female ejaculation, castration anxiety.

Without going into excessive detail, it's not just the hair that I find repulsive. The only kind of genitalia I find attractive at all—but I do find passionately arousing—is the female kind that looks very childlike, like a simple slit. To perfectly match that look, my ex-girlfriend had her (fairly small) inner labia completely removed and her clitoral hood drastically reduced in size (which was also really practical and fun, highly recommended for any girls reading, especially submissive ones, although it takes a few weeks to get used to it). I think whether or not those very specific preferences are some sort of subliminal "imprinting", because the only female genitalia I saw before 10 (I didn't even ever see my mother's as I was born by c-section) was the vulva of a young friend when I was 1 to 4 years old, is thoroughly untestable. I don't even remember seeing that friend's vulva, i just know it happened because we were often naked together. Something just as untestable is that I can tell you it sure doesn't feel like my preferences are due to that.

Edit: It's worth mentioning that something typical of high-functioning autism is to have very specific, very intense preferences. I do in all sorts of respects: girls, sexuality, music, visual arts, clothes... I generally have one "type" that I love with obsessive passion.

For what it's worth, I think "female ejaculation" is a very appropriate term for the phenomenon. While the word "squirting" can also apply, we can understand "female ejaculation" as a subcategory of it when it happens specifically during the female orgasm. I've got very hands-on experience with it. It's obviously different from "male ejaculation" and it can be much more impressive, but I think it has enough similarities to warrant using the same word, without it being a mere imaginative analogy. It's linked to higher levels of female pleasure and entire books have been written on how to achieve it. I really wonder if a younger girl could.

I guess we're largely on the same page, although I'm cautious, when presenting the argument to someone who disagrees about this stuff, of using terms like "normal" or "natural", because people seize on the opportunity to say "just because it's natural, doesn't mean it's right" or "what is normal?" as a way of resisting the conclusions. I tend to use the term "hardwired," in order to short-circuit (pun unintended) that process.

I see what you mean. I do like the term "hardwired" in this context. I also use "innate" and "intrinsic".

I suppose if the cultural practice had to do with how the body was presented or drawn attention to. For example, short skirts are often part of uniforms, which display the legs, thigh-high socks draw attention to thighs, and so on. So that fetishes, while symbiotic, can be broken down into their hardwired and cultural components.

Yes, I believe they can be. One theory I like about the hardwired aspects of "sexiness" is that it involves showing just enough, but never too much. A perfect example of this, which is coincidentally another fetish I have, is zettai ryouiki. Even when a girl is otherwise naked, though, I love how thigh-highs highlight the upper thighs and the region between them. There's nothing culturally contingent about that. However, an arguable culturally conditioned aspect of my appreciation of those fetishes might be their association with youth.

I'll come back to perception and Merleau-Ponty later.

[PorcelainLark]

I'd also include the Tanner scale in what I call "theories". ...

I mean I compared the scale with my own memories of seeing nudity. I didn't pick the number 8-10 from reading books. The revised number came after I better understood how development works.

Without going into excessive detail, it's not just the hair that I find repulsive. The only kind of genitalia I find attractive at all—but I do find passionately arousing—is the female kind that looks very childlike, like a simple slit. To perfectly match that look, my ex-girlfriend had her (fairly small) inner labia completely removed and her clitoral hood drastically reduced in size (which was also really practical and fun, highly recommended for any girls reading, especially submissive ones, although it takes a few weeks to get used to it).Something just as untestable is that I can tell you it sure doesn't feel like my preferences are due to that. I think whether or not those very specific preferences are some sort of subliminal "imprinting", because the only female genitalia I saw before 10 (I didn't even ever see my mother's as I was born by c-section) was the vulva of a young friend when I was 1 to 4 years old, is thoroughly untestable. I don't even remember seeing that friend's vulva, i just know it happened because we were often naked together.

I don't think it's particularly unusual, even among heterosexual women. I recall body dysmorphia contributing to labiaplasty. Whether this is down to minor attraction, or a more general tendency is an open question I think. I'm not even sure that an aversion to pubic hair is specifically something pedophilic, but I digress.

For what it's worth, I think "female ejaculation" is a very appropriate term for the phenomenon. While the word "squirting" can also apply, we can understand "female ejaculation" as a subcategory of it when it happens specifically during the female orgasm. I've got very hands-on experience with it. It's obviously different from "male ejaculation" and it can be much more impressive, but I think it has enough similarities to warrant using the same word, without it being a mere imaginative analogy. It's linked to higher levels of female pleasure and entire books have been written on how to achieve it. I really wonder if a younger girl could.

I was under the impression it was urinary incontinence, and that it comes from imagining that because male orgasm is accompanied by ejaculation, so would the female orgasm. There's no necessary reproductive function to urinary incontinence analogous to male ejaculation as far as I'm aware. Not that I have an issue with it people who enjoy that stuff, just that discussion surrounding seems to blur fantasy and reality.

Yes, I believe they can be. One theory I like about the hardwired aspects of "sexiness" is that it involves showing just enough, but never too much. A perfect example of this, which is coincidentally another fetish I have, is zettai ryouiki. Even when a girl is otherwise naked, though, I love how thigh-highs highlight the upper thighs and the region between them. There's nothing culturally contingent about that. However, an arguable culturally conditioned aspect of my appreciation of those fetishes might be their association with youth.

This sort of thing?

Tied to the detection of contrast and grouping is the concept that discovery of an object after a struggle is more pleasing than one which is instantaneously obvious. The mechanism ensures that the struggle is reinforcing so that the viewer continues to look until the discovery. From a survival point of view, this may be important for the continued search for predators. Ramachandran suggests for the same reason that a model whose hips and breasts are about to be revealed is more provocative than one who is already completely naked. A meaning that is implied is more alluring than one that is explicit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroesth ... em_solving

[WavesInEternity]

I don't think it's particularly unusual, even among heterosexual women.

You should have seen the reaction of the plastic surgeon when my girl asked for complete removal of her labia minora. Labiaplasty isn't unusual, but the particular radical form my ex-girlfriend had done is very rare. (For the record, she didn't suffer from body dysmorphia.) Similarly, aversion to pubic hair isn't rare, and it's definitely not tied to minor-attraction as I know many teleiophilic guys that also hate it, but the intensity and specificity of my own feelings is definitely unusual.

I was under the impression it was urinary incontinence

That's a common misconception, spread by the media and even by lawmakers in e.g. the ever-so-dumb UK. The fluid "squirted" does come out of the urethra (Edit: it appears to, but actually comes from Skene's glands ducts right next to it), but it's not urine at all, and the mechanism by which it's produced and expelled is different. It comes from Skene's glands, it's odourless, colourless, tasteless, and slightly viscous. My ex-girlfriend both squirted and sometimes actually urinated during sex, and it was really easy to tell the difference. Most strikingly, she could empty her bladder completely then squirt copious amounts (200+ mL) a few minutes afterwards if I brought her to climax the right way. The particular kinds of stimulation that led to urination or squirting were also different. She only urinated uncontrollably if I maintained direct clitoral stimulation immediately after orgasm and she hadn't emptied her bladder beforehand, but she could squirt at a time quite separate from orgasm if I used many kinds of stimulation (most importantly both clitoral and vaginal) at a high intensity over a significant period of time. Finally, she could squirt repeatedly again and again amounts that were completely out of proportion with what's typically involved in urination. It was quite fascinating, and it led us to read a few books on the topic. It's probably so ill-understood because it typically requires very high female pleasure, and the formal study of female sexual pleasure is still in its infancy.

This sort of thing?

Yep. I think I even remember Ramachandran's name.

[PorcelainLark]

Similarly, aversion to pubic hair isn't rare, and it's definitely not tied to minor-attraction as I know many teleiophilic guys that also hate it, but the intensity and specificity of my own feelings is definitely unusual.

I mainly say that because I once heard a story about guy who's girlfriend got it into her head that the aversion to pubic hair was indicative of pedophilia; I didn't want to dismiss the idea outright, even though personally I feel it's a mistake.

That's a common misconception, spread by the media and even by lawmakers in e.g. the ever-so-dumb UK. The fluid "squirted" does come out of the urethra, but it's not urine at all, and the mechanism by which it's produced and expelled is different. It comes from Skene's glands, it's odourless, colourless, tasteless, and slightly viscous. My ex-girlfriend both squirted and sometimes actually urinated during sex, and it was really easy to tell the difference. Most strikingly, she could empty her bladder completely then squirt copious amounts (200+ mL) a few minutes afterwards if I brought her to climax the right way. The particular kinds of stimulation that led to urination or squirting were also different. She only urinated uncontrollably if I maintained direct clitoral stimulation immediately after orgasm and she hadn't emptied her bladder beforehand, but she could squirt at a time quite separate from orgasm if I used many kinds of stimulation (most importantly both clitoral and vaginal) at a high intensity over a significant period of time. Finally, she could squirt repeatedly again and again amounts that were completely out of proportion with what's typically involved in urination. It was quite fascinating, and it led us to read a few books on the topic. It's probably so ill-understood because it typically requires very high female pleasure, and the formal study of female sexual pleasure is still in its infancy.

Probably due to my aversion to urine and, I think, because it's common for urinary incontinence to be interchangeable with female ejaculation in the context of pornography, it's not a topic I've looked that deeply into. I've never been interested urination when I've been physically intimate with women, either. That's probably a stumbling block to learning more about the topic for some people.

[WavesInEternity]

I mainly say that because I once heard a story about guy who's girlfriend got it into her head that the aversion to pubic hair was indicative of pedophilia; I didn't want to dismiss the idea outright, even though personally I feel it's a mistake.

To be clear: I am not suggesting that aversion to pubic hair is generally associated with pedophilia. My Marxist Prof back in university once argued in class that women shaving down there was "infantilizing", strengthened the patriarchy and promoted prostitution. I argued quite passionately against that view. I think there are a variety of reasons for it, and that it's probably most often just an aesthetic preference, and in other respects a matter of feeling better and more hygienic (reasons that many girls gave me for starting to shave on their own). I am really only speaking of my personal case, which isn't merely about pubic hair but about the broader appearance of the female genitalia: for example, the labia minora are virtually always tiny and tucked inside, invisible, before puberty... and I'm nearly as averse to large visible inner labia as I am to pubic hair.

Probably due to my aversion to urine and, I think, because it's common for urinary incontinence to be interchangeable with female ejaculation in the context of pornography, it's not a topic I've looked that deeply into. I've never been interested urination when I've been physically intimate with women, either. That's probably a stumbling block to learning more about the topic for some people.

I see. It's quite likely that such feelings are in no small part why the phenomenon is so unknown and misunderstood. Surely, many girls that feel like they're on the verge of squirting will think they're about to urinate, and hold it in. In fact, now that I think about it, that's something my ex-girlfriend actually said she had to overcome at first. It's quite unfortunate, because girls do have to really let go to achieve squirting, and it's associated with higher pleasure levels, as I mentioned earlier. For the record, I don't have a urination fetish, but I'm not especially repulsed by it either. I'm also ambivalent about squirting itself, but I love how it involves complete surrender from the girl and high levels of immersive sexual ecstasy.

[PorcelainLark]

I see. It's quite likely that such feelings are in no small part why the phenomenon is so unknown and misunderstood. Surely, many girls that feel like they're on the verge of squirting will think they're about to urinate, and hold it in. In fact, now that I think about it, that's something my ex-girlfriend actually said she had to overcome at first. It's quite unfortunate, because girls do have to really let go to achieve squirting, and it's associated with higher pleasure levels, as I mentioned earlier. For the record, I don't have a urination fetish, but I'm not especially repulsed by it either. I'm also ambivalent about squirting itself, but I love how it involves complete surrender from the girl and high levels of immersive sexual ecstasy.

In any case, I stand corrected. I genuinely wasn't aware of Skene glands. Interesting to learn about them.