A thought experiment...

[Wayz2PlzU]

So I had this crazy idea in my head, but bear with me here. A sort of thought experiment popped into my head. Why is it when a guy dresses up in diapers (whether in full baby-like gear or otherwise) get looked at as "weird", " unstable ", "off his meds", etc, perhaps even bipolar while a woman who does the same is looked upon as "misunderstood", in her own fantasy world, or has quite fully grown up in the world of adults"? So why is it that men are looked at with such shame while women who do the same (wear diapers) are viewed much differently? What makes women less " looney"compared to their male diaper wearing counterparts? Seriously. When was the last time someone said "Oh doesn't he look cute in that diaper and T-shirt?" vs. "Oh she looks adorable with those diapers, a nice summer dress and a pacifier" If you can't think of when (notwithstanding the ABDL community), it just doesn't happen. Even women who have no sexual attraction to men get more "Ooohs" and "Aahhhhs" than men ever will. Are all men labeled the same!? Do we forever get the Stamp that says "We'll never be considered cute compared to women, even if some of them are lesbian." Anyway, that's just my random thought for the (late) night. What do you think? Constructive feedback appreciated.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Well, On average a female is smaller and has a high voice, as with children so it seems more apporpiate. Also, and certain persons are not going to like this. There are biological differences that point tooward a necessary compatibility of the two. It is generally considered that the male initiates the sequence of attractions. This is true only of the overt parts. In psych 101 you learn that the girl initiates the whole process. This is even recognized in genreral parlance 'I chased her 'til she caught me". This means that sexual and gender equality are un-doable. However a better concept would be equvilence: Different but necessary in the same way that 2+5=7 and 3+4=7. Each is complete as 7 yet the parts are different 2 is not 3 and 5 is not 4, but 7 is 7, Neither one is better than the other but better at different things

This gets into "sex' vs "gender". as ALG Taffy Cheerful put it "Sex is physical, gender in between the ears". I concur. Please note that in most languages, words have "gender", so, as my Latin teacher put it to us "gender is not sex". the difference is male/female and masculine/feminine. In Latin "sailor" is "nauta" and a "first declension" noun. The first declension is considered feminine. Unless something bizarre was happening, sailors were never female. Gender is sex-associative but not sex-exclusive. This is why I and those in the first incarnation of the TGGuide recognized a difference between "transgender" and "transsexual". the relevent terms for the two main stanges of transexual were "pre-op" and "post-op". The behavioral key was "I feel trapped in the wrong body". This would signify a transexual. Also using the two words for one at the necessary exclusion of the other decreases clarity and leave one of the two kinds unknowable

Now, I believe that you are conducting this thought experiment in masculine tuerms. How would a girl approach it?

Besides that, this is being evaluated in a sexual frame of reference. There is such a thing as "behind closed doors" or as I am fond of saying "If you do not want the public in your bedroom" meaning that you do not want criticism or any judgements pass on your sexual proclivities, "then don't put your bedroom in the public square", meaning if you make a public specticle of your proclivities they are proper subjects of public discussion. That is why an unwritten rule of public behavior and a condition of "tolerance" is "while everyone has 'kink", leave the kink at home". Put another way. let sleeping dogs lie, or, Don't spook the horses, or TMI. If you public behavior does not reflect knowledge of the difference between private and public then you cannot blame others for questioning your stability and therefore your trustworthiness

That is part of the story, we may need to google up something I had read to me when I was 7 called THE 6 BLIND MEN OF HUNDUSTAN AND THE ELEPHANT since changed to THE 6 WISE MEN OF HINDUSTAN... to be Politically Correct but when you read the story you will see the innacuracy of the title

Actually, this is not an experiment or even a systematic observation of any kind, since no testible hypothesis has been put forward

[diaperedandspanked]

Males are not allowed to be "cute" in anything past the age of 5. We are supposed to be big strong manly mans, not running around in a diaper.

[Wayz2PlzU]

Males are not allowed to be "cute" in anything past the age of 5. We are supposed to be big strong manly mans, not running around in a diaper. Girls can get away with anything, being the supposedly weaker sex. (I'll get trashed for that comment) That's just how society views us males, we are not supposed to show any weakness.

You may be right on the mark with that. Men, for the most part even gay men, are not looked at in the same sort of "cuteness" as most women. We just don't get that kind of treatment due to the fact that we men are viewed as strong, non emotional, not showing any weakness whatsoever, even if we had peed our pants in broad view of others while we men vehemently deny such occurrence. We'd rather get ridiculed in shame than to admit having pissed our pants or having crapped our pants.

Given the choice, we'd rather women take all of the blame than admit any sort of weak spot.

[Denube]

Christine has a point. The two genders have different defining characteristics. However, I do agree that there needs to be some more intermixing of the gender roles, moreso than has been done currently.

[beallucanb]

I would guess being looked on as weird depends on just who is doing the looking.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Girls make a distinction betweena guy being "cute" and "handsome" and like both