/nsfw/ - xxx

I'm interested in psychology, so I can at least figure out the appeal of even the grossest things. However, Scat was always one of the weirdest, I did try to look up what the appeal was, but it was just too much to handle. What I read is that the grossness is the point.

Personally, besides creepy/illegal kinks, I don't understand people who are exclusively into things that can't be acted out IRL. Vore, inflation, etc., I get liking fantasies just for a break from reality or normal sex, but it feels like a sad sex life to only be turned on by impossible things.

Foot fetish

bdsm, it seems like every single person that's into that is mentally ill
>>10104
this too

>>10105
>it seems like every single person that's into that is mentally ill
agreed

ABDL grosses me out, i don't get it either

I forgot one I always thought was gross, besides Scat. Pregnancy fetish that focused on the baby being born has always been really weird and feels pedo-ish in a way too. I can actually understand the other aspects of pregnancy fantasy, but the baby parts ruins it.

nerdification fetish. tbh as a nerdy woman its kid of funny, but like why? what is the appeal?

the crushing fetish is horrible!!

Can someone explain the appeal of feminizing males? I always assumed this was a male-only thing but I've seen women claim to be into it. Why would you be turned on by a grotesque caricature of femininity, especially when it's so often associated with "shaming" ("dominating", "humiliating") the moid?

>>10123
I hate that stuff, but I used to know a guy who wanted to be feminized and a woman who wanted to do it to men. I know for the woman, she said that the degrading was a point. When girls are forced to shave, wear makeup, high heels, have a thin waist, be encouraged to get plastic surgery if they want to "look pretty", it's just how they're supposed to act in their gender role. It's "normal". But if a guy was made to do that, it would be seen as uniquely punishing, because men are "really human". I guess it's a Femdom thing and a way of "venting" about society.

>>10123
wdym by "feminizing" men? I like feminine men but not in the fetichistic sterotyped way. For example picrel would be considered to be super feminine for a man but idk if it's what you're refering to.

>>10127
I think she is talking about forced feminization/gross sissy stuff.

>>10127
Sorry I should've clarified, I was talking about stuff like what >>10124 said, like "forcing" men to dress like women, put makeup on, etc., as a way to dominate them. I get why someone might be into androgynous men, it's just the ritualistic "put on the pretty dress, now you're a girl!!!" stuff that always confuses me. Like how do you assert dominance if what you're doing is basically insulting yourself or reducing femininity to a costume? (Not to mention, your average moid is butt ugly and just can't pull it off)

>>10129
what you're describing really makes me think of the weird bimbofication fetish (sadly like picrel)

>>10129
Well, femininity is a trashy costume, even if being a woman isn't. It's a way for women to put themselves down and be weak. Expanding the humiliation of that to men works for me. It's also cathartic to push it on someone else instead of having it be expected of you.

Torture porn and guro/gore, bondage and anything with pain involved.

>>10148
I like these as long as it's the moid suffering (if a woman is involved in the artwork I prefer her to be the one making the moid suffer). It's very cathartic to me. I doubt I'm the norm though. I've been on the internet way too young so maybe it might be the reason why I developped a taste for it.

>>10150
I find gore stuff gross sexually, but some ero-guro that's artistic and a more body horror approach can be pretty cool.

>>10150
it is pretty funny and if the male subject is not tortured and sliced up beyond recognition it can be hot to me but not quite arousing or something i could get off to.
>>10151
yeah pretty much.

Cuckquean. Maybe I am biased because I hate this shit and for me it is a very moidish fetish.

>>10185
any fetish that involves some level of infidelity i don't get either, it just feels like a way to speedrun the end of a couple

I can sort of understand someone finding farts and whipping taboo and arousing but it's shit like foot fetishism that creeps me out. Imagine just going out as your perfectly normal usual self and having some cumbrained scrote eyefucking, fantasizing and possibly creepshotting you and then going home and fapping because you had a normal fucking index finger and didn't cover it up and make an effort to move and act in a way that makes your index finger as unsexy as possible

Will never understand feederism or inflation

>>10202
It's about the crossing of gradual "change of state" and "degeneration of matter"

>tfw I'm into most/a lot of the shit on this thread
I swear I'm not a bad person.

>>10236
Lol I understand anon. I have a fat fetish.
>>10212
I don't like inflation, but for me feederism isn't about the change of state. I just feel like the fat looks.. cute and soft, and for some reason the slobbiness of it turns me on. Yeah I know I'm fucked up and I have had this fetish since childhood.

>>10123
I've never met a woman who openly has a feminization fetish. But nearly every girl I went to school with loved Ru Paul's drag race. Girls got really (non-sexually) excited whenever guys at our school would cross-dress for some event, a dare, drama class, just playing around, etc. So many women are non-sexually excited by it; so I wouldn't be surprised if there were also women who were also sexually aroused by it.

I don't know how fetishes come into existence. But lets say, for instance, during your formative years, your crush loses a bet, and he has to cross dress as punishment, and you're witness to the whole thing; that might create some sort of strange associations in your mind that turn into a life-long fetish.

>>10247
There is this theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_target_location_error
Where the location is erroneously filled with something different from penis in vagina

>>10258
(Different anon) I personally believe in that theory, but I honestly only think fetishes count as a sexuality "error" if it completely takes over. Like if someone enjoyed fantasizing about their fetish (obviously this doesn't include illegal things) time-to-time or doing it with their partner, that's "just" a fetish, but if their sexuality exclusively revolves around that fetish only, then it's a disorder IMO.

Anything involving animals. That shit is disturbing to me. I liked a few of this artist's nsfw artwork on pixiv and I click on their profile. And… Jesus fucking Christ. I turned on tag block after that.

Male masochism. Specifically of a heterosexual variety. Not "submissive," which is usually a meaningless term when applied to heterosexual men since it at once refers to a hundred mutually contradictory concepts, attitudes, rituals and behaviors.

Most male fetishes in some way extend some sexual evolutionary niche. Even retarded ones like feet serve to create a comparative advantage, such as making a broader or different range of people attractive. So there can be an evolutionary advantage to a specific strain in society having the brain damage that turns feet attractive if it means that their male line competes less over conventional features than over whatever it is that makes one foot better than another. Cuckold fetishism may serve to make men sufficiently lax or permissive to take what are evolutionary risks in terms of male uncertainty in mating. Feminization is probably linked to a desire to become invisible or undetectable as a sexual threat to gain sexual access to women. But male masochists are only attractive to male sadists, and since their fetish requires specific and often initiatory action on women's part this makes them an evolutionary deadstop. Having met and interacted online with a statistically significant number of sadistic women I can say with a high degree of confidence (N > 100, sample size should be large enough for the entire population of Earth) none of them think male masochists are redeemable or parterable. And it's not because the demographics I interact were just fujos and slashfic sadists, all walks of life, not just terminally online NEETs. Some preferred dominant or vanilla men, and the rest preferred women.
This makes it legitimately skin-crawlingly disturbing that some male masochists are in positions of power, influence and authority when in society outside of the bedroom; the CEO who sees a dominatrix more often than his wife is apparently all too real. I think that male fetishism is different than the sexual interests that women can gain, and are more or less always either hard-wired or a result of unrooted porn escalation without any real life sexual outlet, so businessbros with their real life wives and real life dominatrices can be categorized into column A, a lifelong, wired in sexuality which can be behaviorally modified into remission at best but never truly cured. The mental illness required to be masochistic as a male ought to have been pruned from human gene lines long ago but it is instead pervasive even in the elite. These creeps then trick women into thinking they are normal and mentally sound and even faithful while cheating on them with prostitutes on a lifelong basis in a malign pattern that will never stop because they have an actual mental illness style fetish that is printed into their psychology at the very least for life and likely into their genes as well, and not an internet slang fetish which is just a prurient interest that might be picked up or discarded.

The only real way to try to explain it is as a harmful evolutionary side effect of male selection of masochistic women. That is an extremely unsatisfactory explanation as it would strongly suggest that male sexual behavior, interests and inclinations would be similar to women's sexuality in other ways as well. Which is obviously not the case with male masochists, as we can infer from the fact that sadistic women often enjoy and value the masochism of masochistic women, but never the masochism of masochistic men. Since the two masochism types are received so differently even by the testimony of sadistic bisexuals it should be fair to assume they always manifest indifferent behaviors, different personality qualities, and require different causes as well.

Since masochistic males are actually pervasive and their social capability is actually unhindered, they have wives and relationships which are kept ignorant of their regular abuse of prostitution to satisfy their core sexual identity. It seems like all heterosexual women who are not abused directly by their moids are being abused indirectly by this strain, both through the inherent abuse of prostitution and the abusive selfishness of deceit.

>>10311
Oh, also, inb4 "but I like masochistic men" or "my husband's a masochist but he's faithful" - this is an anonymous imageboard and I trust the people I've met and had connections with to not be tranners, moids or liars.

>>10286
I watched the documentary about the guy who died from having sex with a horse, and a book about another guy who was an open advocate and stole a famous racehorse and claimed it was his "husband". It's hard for me to not think these people have some developmental issue that makes them unable to relate to other humans and see them as attractive partners. But that's for the ones who claim it's their sexuality/lifestyle, I think for others who only like it sexually or in porn, it's a degradation thing of lowering themselves (or someone else) to something sick and humiliating.

thinking about that guy who has a fetish for layering like 10 pairs of gym shorts on himself

>>10336
>guy
it's the y chromosome

>>10311
Honestly never previously thought about the fact that I don't really like masochistic men despite being sadistic. My current boyfriend lets me bite him rather hard, but that's because he has a high pain tolerance + enjoys knowing that I like it. I definitely would like it less if he derived pleasure from the pain itself. I'm unsure if I would go as far as to call it a turn off, but it's definitely less sexy. I'm also bi, but I have no sadistic desires when it comes to women so I have no insight to provide there.

>>10104
I hate how everyone suddenly start sexualize feet because of that - sexualize not in “I’m into feet” way, but in “omg what is that is that feet ew this is so fetishy and gross” way
People, it’s just feet, a normal body part, what the fuck are you on. Why they are so repulsed by feet, I have a feeling that’s also some form of deviation
That’s just feet!

>>10373
Like it becomes a reverse fetish, in a way? Sometimes I wonder if the vocal backlash is them trying to repress themselves, I had a phase where I pretended to be grossed out but my fetishes, lmao.

Vore.

It's way too goofy of a fetish for me to ever understand why some would be into it. I don't know how you can look at those images and NOT burst out laughing.

>>10407
I've encountered that one often enough that I think I can explain it, though any explanation of a fetish from someone outside of it is facing an uphill climb.

A higher quality vore artist almost always focuses on some specific part of the body involved in the consumption on the part of the perpetrator. It's extremely rare for the sexual focus to be on the victim. So the actual interest is probably in the power and action of the devouring part. One of the vore artists who was more regularly posted to 4chan's /tg/ was named Karbo. /tg/ had a strange relationship with his work, usually pretending to be interested in it for worldbuilding rather than sexual reasons even though I mean really. Karbo is for the most part just a higher tier animesque artist, but he draws a woman's mouth with a sense of dynamism and purpose. His pictures are extremely sensual, in the sense of using their visuals to appeal to multiple senses, particularly touch. His ability to depict a woman's mouth manages to convey the idea of a mouth as this forceful but living other, an overpowering force but one which is immediate and sensorally overwhelming, rather than passive or laying in mystery hidden behind lips and teeth. Good vore artists and authors of all descriptors would likely bring those qualities of sensory overload, immediacy and tactility to whatever part they focus on. So it seems likely to be a body part fetish and therefore an intense form of othering and objectification, which also tantalizes the fetishist with the idea that they are in some way privy to the mysterious interior vitality of the target of their objectification. I also read something written by a woman who fantasized about a man voring her. She wrote that how making a meal for a man is rewarding because men just look so honest and simple when they eat meat, when all the masking of society and propriety falls away and there is only one predatory focus, their real self revealed in the state of nature. She said that she was jealous of the steak for experiencing that primal masculine power in such a complete and honest way. Vore for her was the extreme artistic endpoint of her existing interest in being a feeder, when the man through his eyes and mouth shows that he has reverted to a subhuman and bestial state of masculinity because she had done something so perfectly desirable in the preparation of the meal that his desire overwhelmed all else.

Fetish art and writing are usually terrible at conveying the sensual qualities of their interest, because the interest itself excites and suggests that sensuality to those who have the fetish. Crayon tier art is all that is necessary since someone who has the fetish will fill in the blanks. So of course bad fetish art will become extremely bad at conveying the interesting qualities of their interest rather than the dumb looking subject of their interest. And since men are bad at writing and reading and thinking, they're going to be terrible at conveying what it is that they respond to in said crayon doodles. But there are enough women in places like Eka's Portal that when I wanted to know why this stuff excites anyone I was able to find explanations written by women rather than a men, and they were able to make sense.

>>10409
That's interesting, but why did you research and ponder about vore so much?

>>10410
Spend 18 years online as an adult and you'll eventually dig into all sorts of stupid things.

>>10411
I guess I learnt something, then. I always assumed it was just a big extension of piv for moids. Like, having my dick in a girl is good so what it I were completely inside.

>>10412
That might be true too. Like I said my understanding came from trying to read what I could from women with that interest. Which is strangely difficult. Eka from Eka's Portal is a cisgendered woman from a pre-internet generation so you'd think that she'd have a really interesting perspective on how that interest developed for her but the other side of being a pre-internet generation woman is that she keeps denying personally having the interest that she built her entire site around.

>>10414
I mean, it makes sense that she'd hold onto plausible deniability in case she wants to work on something more mainstream down the line.

I'm curious though, are you into it yourself, or only looking at it from a scholarly perspective?

>>10409
Oh my god anon, I'm so glad to see another person who is curious about fetishes you don't have to want to "research" the appeal. I'm not into vore either, but I actually run into more vore content that focuses on the victim (I had friends into it and some characters in my fandoms attract fanart of them as "preds" or whatever it's called). The appeal I read for that side that for "soft vore" (just swallowing, no killing/gore) is the comfort of being inside a tight space, it's kind of like an alternate form of sex because you're "inside someone" but not in the typical intercourse way.

>>10415
I have a mild interest in the often associated fetish of unbirth, which I think is self explanatory as it involves the direct stimulation of genitals instead of a mouth.

>>10417
>unbirth
I'm very scared to google. What is it?

>>10419
In my case, vaginal sex taken to a cartoonish extreme in which a woman's arousal overwhelms her partner, first sexually and then completely. This is usually laughable but also kind of sexy, especially if it goes to an ultimate conclusion leaving both partners fulfilled (contra vore which naturally suggests an unpleasant end for one party). For others, something perhaps best represented with this dildo:
https://www.primalhardwere.com/product/NLS
I sort of blame cartoons for the fact that this works at all, since they'd use the metaphorical visual language of character scale to suggest emotional intensity, angry characters becoming bigger etc., and obviously normal heterosexual intercourse involves the male's genitals actually becoming physically bigger the more aroused he is. I also blame a general deficit of pornography that shows women who are clearly intensely aroused for the fact that there's any reason to look for anything that can convey that feeling even through distorted cartoonish metaphor.
You are wise to be wary, since even for me stuff that hits right is rare but offensive content is common. Scrotes fuck everything up.

>>10420
NTA but I always found that kink interesting in a Freudian/psychological way. Doesn't it also go into the "vore but with a vagina" route where someone goes in the vagina and back inside the womb, hence "reverse birth"? I'd be curious to know where that stems from for others.

>>10420
That's actually really interesting. I like how it is a sort of crossroad of different themes. A metaphor of the male losing himself in his partner's pleasure taken literally. An inversion of the dynamic where the male is getting bigger and stronger through sex. And the focus being put on woman pleasure as the driver of everything.

>>10421
There might also be some of that, but I feel like it's a less interesting angle since it focuses on the male perspective only and his desire to go back into the womb. Which is generally where most Freudian readings lead since Freud himself was very male-centered.

>>10236
Yeah don't worry, me too. I've always been into things that were considered " fucked-up ", way before I discovered the internet (I used to live in a ghetto where almost everyone didn't have acces to wi-fi, and I got my first phone with touch screen and laptop when I was over 17 years old).
If anyone is interested, I'll list the stuff I'm into, then explain why I'm into them and what I think is the appeal.
>Guro/Gore
I've always loved it, and honestly I can't decide if I want to be the one who's gutted or be the one who slaughters.
Something about feeling the warmth of the insides, touching their slick surface & the smell is really alluring. Seeing your soulmate covered in your or their blood and the sensation from the pain. I love it when you feel the ache and injury and just convey it in a way you can enjoy it. Plus the scars look pretty and the itching is nice.
>Amputation
When someone is lacking limbs that every human has they become dependent on others. It sounds messed up, but the appeal to me is that you take care and comfort your other. Plus having limbs teared out of your body sounds… Tempting?
>Throwing up/Puking
I've always liked throwing up, having your stomach cleared feels very good, and when your mouth drools and your eyes tear up feels really good.
>Incest (Only with fictional male characters)
Pure brotherly love turning into an ill and sick desire, or when they understand that their effection can be something much bigger.
>Inhuman anatomy
One of my biggest favourites. I don't think I need to explain much, but something about exploring alternative ways how humanoids can function (especially sexually) trully intriques me.
>Rape (Only male on male).
I like seeing men getting rough and beating each other while getting homoerotic.

>>10452
Based.
>guro/gore
I could never really explain why I liked it but I think you you summed it up pretty much. Personally I've always been interested in gore whether it be sexual or not. The concept of putting ones life in another's hands with basically full trust, is pretty hot. It's also the unwillingness sometimes, and the fucked up psychological aspect that they realize they're turned on by it.
>puke
I like when male characters puke from being throatfucked too hard, or from being beaten. It's kind of the shame/digust of it that they feel that gets me off, I guess.
>incest fiction
I only like sibling on sibling, most often brother on brother. Especially the neglectful parents and siblings rely on each other for support trope, and their love becoming 'too much/abnormal' because of how dependent they are.
>inhuman anatomy
What you said.
>m/m rape
I just enjoy seeing men being psychological hurt.

I'm into a lot of taboo stuff because I like when love turns into an immoral or obsessive addiction. But the taboo stuff I enjoy will never include women, I'm not even a fujo but I don't see the appeal of women's pain as much as men's.

>>10416
>it's kind of like an alternate form of sex because you're "inside someone" but not in the typical intercourse way.
Yeah, that seems like one of the bigger reasons it managed to catch on amongst otherwise sex-repulsed or asexual women on Tumblr. There's also a relationship to pro-ana ideology in which the act of eating becomes a sort of forbidden, repressed, and taboo desire.

>>10498
Yeah, I notice a lot of sex-repulsed asexual types seem to like vore which is interesting. I personally don't believe that someone can be "asexual with a fetish", even if the fetish doesn't involve genitals or intercourse, it's still sexually symbolic to the fetishist. I once found a blog by a self-proclaimed "asexual voreaphile" and despite being technically SFW it still looked very sexually motivated or a form of replacement porn.

One of the points that I saw anti-psychiatry arguments make, years and years ago, was that psychiatry is centered around making people "fit" in the sense of holding jobs and grinding at the economy instead of actually cultivating any sort of objective health. There are a lot of things that can be lined up with that argument, but one of the most compelling ones is the "cure" of paraphilic disorder in male patients. None of the case studies of cured paraphilia in men actually involve elimination of the paraphilia. It's only the elimination of associated distress. Like this case:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/understanding-the-erotic-code/201704/mommy-nearest
Considering how much pain Stuart both experienced and directly caused everyone associated with him, it's downright grotesque to see a stage in which he still experiences his paraphilic urges as the "pencils down" moment in his treatment. It's obviously not "done" just because he found a point he personally can tolerate, which might just indicate having found a more pliable partner. It's like if an infection patient decided that they were done with their antibiotics because their redness and swelling were reducing. He is barely beginning to process the fact that what his mother used to do to him was actually wrong and neither normal nor innocent. But that's the point at which his therapist seems to think he's been taken as far as can be expected to be taken with therapy, and the same is also true in all other cases! All of them. Including "successful" treatments of actual obligate pedophiles rather than mere victims of pseudopedophilic socialization / oedipal damage.

It's fairly obvious that paraphilic disorders as they occur in men cause distress and harm to women everywhere, either directly within sexual and relational contexts or by indirect harm through social contact. Freud opened the door to the analytic, intellectual and emotional treatment of paraphilic disorders a century ago, and yet no real progress seems to have been made in terms of managing to treat these creatures once the minimum threshhold for "can he hold a job" has been reached. That doesn't seem good enough.

Not sure if this is the right thread for this exactly, just something I've been chewing on mentally for a bit.

>>10566
This is interesting, thanks for posting.

I'm not seeing enough hate for chastity cages in this thread

>>10566
You are going to find this interesting:
https://psychohistory.com/articles/the-universality-of-incest/

It's quite a long read, but contains some shocking data.

>>10571
That's a harrowing read.

The sections regarding non-western societies, particularly India and China, reminded me of a now-defunct blogger who described the Christian invention of permanent devotional chastity for the sanctification of the self rather than in anticipation of a husband as the most important step towards women's rights ever taken in the world. She also said that Christian virginity hit different because Christ was elevated to the theretofore unheard of role of a sacred male virgin, which due to their religion's monotheism was made into a supreme rather than minor masculine virtue. Men throughout Rome were struggling psychologically and philosiphically to wrestle with that concept after Constantine overthrew the old order. The narrative being that virginity couldn't just be good because it enables men to have sex with a virgin, as Christ was not intended for use as a catamite, nor because it secured paternity as Christ left no descendants (this was the core of her point, ranting about the Da Vinci Code). The consequence of that being that nunneries and convents formed across Europe which, quite opposite to "temple virgin" prostitutes, existed in order to never have sex rather than to either ritualize sex or to prepare for marriage, and provided a social channel for escape from familial sexual coercion (with the presumed military protection of the states and aristocracies that relied on the Church for legitimacy). I dismissed her at the time because 'lol virginity is a social construct invented to oppress women.' Naive, black-and-white thinking on my part.

>>10572

i love this place, for giving me out-there takes ('lol virginity') that give me pause and respect for things i hate (christianity)

(and harrowing reads that keep me sleepless, like the link in >>10571)

I sometimes browse "shitty art" threads on other sites and one time I saw some SFM model that was a giant foot, covered in latex, with a head pasted on top. It was probably a joke, but there was too much dedication for it to be just trolling to gross people out. I can understand finding specific body parts sexy in a way, but not a full-blown partialism like that.

It's pretty sad and disheartening to find out the guy you find attractive physically and/or mentally is a porn addicted degenerate who's into piss and some other stuff he doesn't want to disclose

The "fetish" I don't understand is why there is significantly less femporn than regular porn. :/ And how other women are able to enjoy regular porn when so much of it is made for the male gaze.

>>10185
This too. Cuckquean is very cringe to me and so is most threesomes/orgies with more female participants than males. Two males can have a lot more fun with one female than two (or more) females awkwardly dealing with only one male.

>>10102
>"mommy"
I love being in control and also being framed as a loving and nuturing figure.

>>10123
>>10129
Sissy stuff is pretty cringe thanks to transgenderism blowing up as bad as it has, but I love seeing attractive males in feminine clothing even though that's still a social taboo if he isn't an actual troon. Transgenderism sucks honestly, actively continues to make crossdressing harder to enjoy.
I love the aspect that it crushes a male's ego and puts him on the same level as me, and when pushed further, focuses on objectifying him for my enjoyment. Role-reversal type of thing.

>>10407
I think vore is a weird, "kid friendly" version of boys imagining what oral sex/vaginal sex feels like. Most vore porn usually has a female predator, while male predator vore is usually gay, which is why I think it's like this. When they imagine being eaten, it's more like their body is anticipating the sensation going into a woman's mouth (literally bc vore) or pussy. And that's how they jerk off.
It doesn't really work for us because imagining cartoonishly eating a boy isn't as sexy or purposeful as sucking his dick. At least, imo.

I know for a fact that some of the AI story generators that don't allow porn tend to be permissive of vore content, and vore tends to slip past safe search results, which is why I say it's ""kid friendly"". (Even though it's freaky.)

>>10679
>why there is significantly less femporn than regular porn. :/
Not sure how that can be confusing. Moids have generic urges, women have specific and refined palettes, and sexual fantasies that usually feature someone in specific and not "someone with breasts." Porn can feed generic desire but not specific and personal desires because it has to be made for an audience and not an individual. Consider the contrast between "I want to torture a moid, wouldn't it be great if there was some prostitution style service where women could hit moids boy that sure is my fetish" versus "sometimes I just want to drug Steve from my biochem class and have him wake up suspended and splayed out and just run my hands all over his exposed body while his eyes are sealed. Then I want to just slowly break every bone in his hands, one at a time, so that they can never touch anyone else's body without pain ever again. I want to call his mom on his phone and have her listen to what's happening to her golden child and have her understand that he's losing his scholarship and probably his life and all of her years of work on him were for nothing because some stranger wanted to ride his face. Then I want to cut off his testicles so that every possible purpose to his existence is snuffed out." The first sounds moidy because it is so impersonal. The second only sounds non-feminine if you're prejudiced against sadists, it is a modified version of a possibly misremembered livejournal entry I came across ages ago.

>>10679
People watch straight porn to see women taking dicks, people who would rather look at males are generally already perfectly content with gay stuff, people who would rather look at female-centric sex acts are generally already perfectly content with lesbian stuff, thus making straight porn focused on the male body and/or female pleasure (I assume this is what you mean by "femporn") a very tiny niche very few people actually care about, let alone are willing to pay for, therefore not really worth catering to unless the artists themselves are really, really into it for their own sake.

>>10566
This article hit me hard because it's so similar to what I experienced, but with the genders swapped. I was never molested, but my dad used to slap my ass, hold hands with me in public, kiss me on the mouth, etc, until I was around 16 or 17. People would sometimes mistake us for a couple because of the way he acted. It made me uncomfortable at the time, but I never really conceptualized it as bad or wrong. Looking back, it probably contributed to a lot of my hangups and issues re: sex, though thankfully I'm not as damaged as the moid from the article.

Anyway, I'll never understand the appeal of any fetish that involves cute cartoon characters. I don't understand how anyone could see Pikachu or a Care Bear or whatever the fuck and feel any sexual urges towards it whatsoever. This fetish seems to exclusively exist in moids, usually in conjunction with either blatant pedophilia or a state of arrested sexual development. Picrel is a particularly strange example that's been floating around the internet for a while. It stands out because of both the odd grammatical/spelling errors ("foreverial") and the creator's apparent lunchmeat mummification fetish. I've never been able to find the original source, but there are dozens of images just like these, all of them bad MS Paint drawings of cartoon characters tied up and turned into deli meat, all featuring walls of text.

>>10713
>Anyway, I'll never understand the appeal of any fetish that involves cute cartoon characters. I don't understand how anyone could see Pikachu or a Care Bear or whatever the fuck and feel any sexual urges towards it whatsoever. This fetish seems to exclusively exist in moids, usually in conjunction with either blatant pedophilia or a state of arrested sexual development.
I actually was acquainted with some females who liked this kind of stuff. I honestly think it's a result of autism or developmental stunting. Attraction to cartoons AKA schediaphilia is arguably common since I've talked to normies who think anime characters can be cute/hot, but I think full-blown CARTOON-cartoons that don't even have human bodies is a more "extreme" form of it. Confession, but I started puberty young and was diagnosed with Asperger's as a teenager, and when I was at the early stages of puberty I did find certain cutesy characters vaguely attractive in a comforting sense (I guess maybe because the round shapes are similar to body types I like on real people, I suspect that for moids maybe the roundness of Sonic the Hedgehog characters look like boobs/butts to a spergbrain), but I quickly grew out of it. I listened to a (now deleted) podcast about rule 34 a long time ago, the hosts were all scrotes, and they described their reasons for liking it and drawing it was that they like comic book characters and puberty made them also like boobs and nudity, so their brain combined it. But instead of being interested in physically mature bodies and combining it, they just see the cartoon as-is as sexual. I dunno.

>>10713
>I've never been able to find the original source,
rafe15.
https://www.deviantart.com/rafe15
He said he stopped drawing that stuff and that it came from a time when he was really angry. He seems to have autism or OCD, and a special interest in military weapons or planes.
Another account of his, last update seems to have been in 2019:
https://www.deviantart.com/deltajacktyhiramx80
He mentioned that he might go back to it, but then said he wouldn't on the same day.

>>10722
>>10723

Interesting. He reminds me a bit of JohnofE, though in that particular case the sexual interest in cartoon animals probably stems from zoophilia rather the fact that the animals he's jerking off to are cartoons. (If I remember correctly, he ended up getting himself chemically castrated for fear that he'd fuck a real dog or something.)

I don't think attraction to 2D characters is that weird in itself. As you said, normies love anime porn. For me the grossness stems from the sexualization of child-like 'cute' characters from children's media. I think you may be right about the connection between this fetish and autism. I'm an autist myself, but I've noticed that other spergs have a tendency to be emotionally stuck at prepubescence/early puberty, especially moids. I suppose there's a sort of perverse logic in being attracted to the likes of Bugs Bunny when you have the emotional maturity of a 13 year old and the hormones of an adult.

>>10726
AYRT. I think another aspect on my end is that I was often infantilized and treated as a kid even though I started puberty early, so I kind of saw myself in the cutesy characters I saw as attractive in a comforting way too. So it was like, "People think I'm innocent, but I'm not. An image of innocence is being projected onto these characters like with me, maybe they're like me and want to do "adult things" too." Or I saw it as "getting back" at people who thought I was just a dumb sexless kid. It's 100% self-projection but a lot of fandom and fanart (even NSFW) is based on that, lmao.

>>10571
It goes from shocking data over into pedophilic wank fantasies of indian child sex dormitories

>>10752
NTA, but that was my exact reaction as well. It would have been a fantastic article had the author only focused on the data supporting the fact that child sex abuse is both extremely common and extremely underreported in western first world countries. Instead we get half an article about that, and half an article in which the author repeats sleazy sensationalist bullshit about societies he obviously knows nothing about. Any salient points about child marriage, genital mutilation, and rape in Africa/Asia lose all their credibility when they're placed alongside claims like "children sleeping in the same bed with their parents is a common practice in [x country], so therefore the parents must be raping the kids."

>>10755
The impression I have was sort of the opposite, that incestuous-pedophilic relationships in the west are, while underreported and underestimated and disregarded, still fairly uncommon, but practically universal everywhere else.

But the article doesn't really back that up with good data. It's not implausible that there are drastic differences in child sex abuse rates between the first world and the third, with the west having, on the whole, outlawed child marriages, which are still widespread in the rest of the world. But suggesting this near-universality of sex with children outside the west, based on anecdotal stories that read like a penthouse letter to a pedo version of national geographic, it comes off to me as pedo cope. "All the brown people are fucking kids, why is us wypipo making such a fuss about it? Cmon man, lemme fuck some kids!"

And I say that as someone who, strictly scientifically speaking, doesn't think there is evidence that sexual activities per se hurt children.

>>10757
AYRT. I don't disagree that pedophilic abuse is common outside the West; in fact I'm inclined to agree with your impression, but the data presented in the article pertained only to the United States and UK, so it didn't make sense to me that the author included other countries in his argument without any (non-anecdotal) evidence to back up his claims.

I don't think he intended the article as pedo apologia since he spent the opening few paragraphs refuting older psychologists like Kinsey who argued that incest and rape don't harm children. (Kinsey was almost certainly a pedophile himself and the shit he did would probably land him in jail if he were alive today.) It seems more like he combed all available literature to find the most salacious and "shocking" stories he could get his hands on, then repeated them without bothering to investigate their veracity or question the motivations of the people who originally published them.

>>10758
> he spent the opening few paragraphs refuting older psychologists like Kinsey who argued that incest and rape don't harm children
I must have skipped over that part, where does it say that?

>>10760
Second paragraph after the heading "Childhood Sexual Abuse in Contemporary Western Societies."

>Even Kinsey wrote: “It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched,” (40) while his coauthor in the Kinsey studies, Wardell Pomeroy, wrote that “incest between adults and younger children can.. be a satisfying and enriching experience…”(41) One must use the research of such scholars with extreme caution, since their main motive is to deny the coercion involved when adults seduce lonely, unloved children.

At least he seems to recognize that 20th century scholarship on sexuality is a minefield of pedos and pedo apologists.

>>10761
That is not a refutation though. Just because Kinsey became every sort of coomer pervert at once, does not make him wrong in that statement. The article does not refute Kinsey or anyone else, but simply suggests their opinions cannot be trusted because they may have ulterior motives.

That's just an ad hominem, not a presentation of evidence like, "Here is a carefully constructed study that shows that kids who got touched at least once in their no-no-area have a 5 sigma higher probability to end up in the mental ward" or whatever.

>>10762
Kinsey's argument is retarded because it assumes that it's possible to separate sexual activity from cultural conditioning, social power dynamics, and the broader cultural mores of society as whole. No human activity exists in a cultural vacuum. There is no society in which sexual activity between an adult and a child would not be harmful to the child because no society affords children agency or power equal to that of adults, nor do children have the mental capacity necessary to engage with adults on equal terms. This isn't something that requires reams of statistics to demonstrate, it's just basic logic that everyone except for people who want to fuck kids can agree upon.

>>10760
He cites some specific analytic works:
>Robert Fliess, after a lifetime of psychoanalytic experience in the removal of amnesia from early memories, regularly found real sexual molestation of his patients at the core of their problems, and concluded that “no one is ever made sick by his fantasies. Only traumatic memories in repression can cause the neurosis.”(32)
>They have even wondered if the analyst’s denial might have prevented cure in those cases where reanalysis discovered incestuous abuse that the first analyst had denied. (33)
Not a lot of hard stats, but footnotes 31 through 36 do seem to build a refutation by acknowledging pre-existing refutations.

>>10768
"Amnesia removal" has been very thoroughly discredited. These sound to me as Freudians who must find childhood trauma to explain current maladaptive behaviors, which also is a discredited approach outside of the most basic pop sci.

>>10102
A fetish I can never understand? Fart fetish and video I’m posting. I can never understand who could have been able to get off from this

>>11192
MY fucking god warn us when you post shit like that, I nearly fucking threw up. THIS SHIT HAS A WOMAN VOMITING INTO A MOIDS MOUTH.