Men and pantyhose

fetishism

In various fashion forums are men who like to wear tights, skirts, pumps etc, again labeled as fetishists, without taking a closer look at all this into consideration. But this stupid assertion is based solely on the lack of knowledge of the authors. An often very narrow view leaves no other review on here. These people simply do not know better.

Are men who tights and women's clothing now carry all fetishists or transvestites or what else?

To answer this question, we first need to employ even more closely with the definition.

What says the dictionary that?

• fetish: magical item
• fetishism: (Fetish worship) abnormal transfer of the sexual impulse to objects.
• transvestism: Mental (sexual) desire clothing of the opposite sex to wear.
• addiction: morbid desire (for example, for drugs)

According to these definitions, anyone can evaluate for themselves what it is now. As what you see yourself, or as what could be seen. The emphasis here is on 'might' because can properly evaluate the an outsider and only in the rarest cases.

Perspectives of other persons

How it looks in a self, or which backgrounds for wearing women's clothing are really crucial, foreign people can not judge. Especially not if the persons are unknown. Nevertheless reign many prejudices that are difficult (or not) may be obtained from the minds of the people.

So you can repeatedly in various forums about fashion and clothes read mutatis mutandis:

• All the men in tights are unmanly and fetishists
• Such men're all queens, transvestites and gay
• Women can not be a fetishist
• etc.

All of these statements are just as wrong as stupid. They only show one thing clear: the various authors have a very limited mental horizon. They live and think only in their own little world. This is because because they never dealt with the issue and we did not worry about it. At the same time they have somewhere heard, read or seen on TV that there are fetishists and transvestites and that these ladies like to wear clothes.

A comparison with an excerpt from an old East Frisian wit can not hide: 'I know someone who knows someone who can read and write ...' That no one really knows his stuff, but all talk.

But how is it really?

From the definitions it appears that at a fetish, a sexual background must be present or is very likely to be present. The fetish itself is thus an object that magically attracts one and with the aid of sexual preferences can be lived.

So if someone connects no sexual desire with a pantyhose, he is not a tights fetishist. But it is irrelevant whether he attracts tights or these 'deified' only at one woman's leg. But the excitement tights him, then meets this definition to him.

Unmanly, what should it be? If a man is only a man, if he behaves as a 'vain Gockel' or macho? Is rough, uncomfortable clothing necessarily a must for a man? Or is it even unmanly if he (etc. skin and hair care, manicured hands) pays attention to his appearance and light fabrics favored?

What about women who are on vinyl, leather and footwear? There are also women who love to attract passionate pantyhose. Are there only so no Fetishists, because they are women? Here, finally, there could be a sexual reference.

That being said, what is so bad about fetishism?

First of all, nothing.

If someone only then can sexually arouse when he or she is wearing latex, leather, tights or other, then that is indeed a great pity for that person, but not dangerous for everyone else, provided it remains within the framework.

If he or she can enrich the fetish's own love life and make it more interesting, then a fortiori there is no objection.

The problem arises only when a partner is added, does not share this fetish, but it looks rather as a burden. Example: he needs tights to get at all in the mood, she leans tights but perfectly from. As soon as one of the partner suffers from this situation, there is a problem that must be necessarily released.

It should not go so far that the partner is reduced to only a pantyhose. Conversely, he should not have to give up everything just because she is against it. That if already Fetish is to be used in pairs, then both should have something like this come once or each at his own expense.

Remedy, away from the fetish

Is that even possible?
First, both partners should try talking to each other via the existing problem. Mutual understanding is very important - and the knowledge or question what is more important for me, the person or fetish?

Certainly heard a lot of patience and practice it, but it should be possible that you once attracts a pair of tights for him, and he should learn to bring themselves to his partner without tights 'momentum' to. If everyone a little approaching the other, you will surely find a workable solution that makes both fun.

It must be avoided in any case that the partner will only be reduced to the fetish. That is, they only like him even if she is wearing a pantyhose. That it is essential to avoid or remedy.

But is he not able to temporarily leave his fetish at least aside, then you remain as a logical consequence of this left only the separation.

transvestism

Now maybe the realization has come that no fetish is present, the unsuspecting person might now come to the conclusion, 'well, then you're just a transvestite'.

From the definition presented above, no one will probably come out. Only the men who watch her ??pantyhose as a purely practical garment and where it does not matter if it weeks or months do not wear tights, only to escape the definition of 'Mental need'. I personally have to bear the daily need, tights, even if this is not sexually motivated. Is my need now emotionally or psychologically conditioned? If so, then I'm just a transvestite. That sounds even better, but it is more representative of the fact.

But from the definition also shows that women who wear men clothes daily, are also transvestites. Only want the true have no wife, or no one speaks in this context about - great logic.

That but also that there are numerically clearly more female than male transvestites. From the generally affable logic of the drawer thinking there is only the transvestite, and is male.

Conclusion:

Whether fetishism or transvestism, there are differing views on the definitions that there is to be screened before you put someone in a drawer. A little think anyone has not hurt, but also requires the presence of brain.

This is also true for anyone who wears even tights etc.. Your own knowledge that you a fetishist, transvestite or whatever, but is also quite helpful. To see yourself as you are, is not even wrong, right?

And because the term transvestite something unpleasant adheres, in which one inevitably thinks of exotics, such as 'Olivia Jones' or 'Mary', is the definition of cross dressers another good name that captures almost all men who wear tights and skirts etc..

From the gained knowledge I can say for me: 'I am a cross-dresser, and at times also a fetishist' - no more, no less.