I really do not like having to address issues explicitly becuase it brings them into full focus in a conscious way and "breaks the spell" by becoming self-conscious. This is more the subject of a lecture in psychoology and history. However, given the chaos, confusion and contradictions that are out there about sex and children. straightening out the record becomes the job of those who can and material that should be understood and promulgated by the professionals and their groups is not being done. I have an advanced degree in Psychology and 20 credits in history, both from well-respected departments in well-respected small colleges in Rhode Island.

As you know, we have a ban on Pedophilia part of which is a ban on the sexualization of children and the use of children in sexual activities or settings. such actions are gross and unladylike and an effront to the very heart of SandraLyn, and are out of the range of childrens' understanding and therefore constitute involving a child in something she, by nature, cannot make a proper judgement about participating in and constitute implied coercion or force. First we specifiy real children and we spedify sexual actifities. Our view of sex is based more in philosophy as far as right and wrong and is supported by worldly experience (common sense and cultural norms approriate to the time setting) and psychology; particularly behavioral psychology. Please note the age we live in; it is characterized by the hyper-sexualization of everything. Just look at how the cute little babydoll, once respectable night and lounging wear for little and young girls is being turned into something fit only for SLUTS and WHORES. This also inclueds children while having such an exaggerated fear of sexualization of children. both of which are committed by the same parties, that it is a given that the Establishment will look for a sexual angle to any adult-child interaction with a goal of making such relations unstable then cash in on this destabilization and the resultant chaos to acquire power and the long-desired abolition of the family as the primary social unit, with all children under the care of some heavily collectivized organization with the connivance of and to the beneift of, a totalitarian government as proposed by Rousseau, to avoid his paternal duties, and adopted by Marx/Engels to create an obedient proletariat. Consequently we have developed criteria to determin if sexualization is present

We do not believe that all things that involve the sex organs are sexual. This would be apparent to any 16 year old boy in high school who has been called upon to do a stand up reading or recitation or the like at "the worst possible moment": Does the word "boner" come to mind [just because I am a lady does not mean I do not know the lingo]?. Simple heat causes blood to flow to all the parts of the body at a greater rate than usual: The rest is simple anatomy. Also, the organs have many touch receptors and respond accordingly. I will not get into the jokes about this and I know of nothing in the psychological or psychiatric lieterature about "Thermosexuality". Under certain circumstances, girls "lubricate" and feel things for the same reason. This is in no way controlled by ideational content.

Fetishes; These often involve responses in the sex organs to ordinarily non-sexual items. In Psychology of Learning I was told about a 6 year old boy who liked to play with himself in front of a burning candle. These kinds of things have also been part of Abnormal Psychology. The learning/behavioral explanation makes more sense and is much simpler, whch adds to its preferability. It appears to be the case that the very "feely" organ or area was stimulated in the presence of the fetish object by physical, rather than ideational factors and the connection, called a "conditional response [the appearance of the response is conditional upon the appearance of the item that is the stimulus]", is made without reference to or even the presence of another person in any way at any level although a person may be administering the stimuls who just becomes "part of the scenery"; Merely the presence of the sepcific item and normal physical stimulation of the organ. This is called "superstitious behavior" since the item has no ideational connection to sex nor is the person of an age to have anything related to sexual feelings since most of these occur in what Jean Piaget called the "sensory-motor" and "pre-operational" stages of development and backed up by studies of cranial and neurological development and universially accpeted before the Establishment decided to replace objective process with subjectivistic claptrap to support its goals of power-lust. This can be elicited by materials such as satin placed on the area: Now there s a surprise, right girls? The only way that the objects become sexual is for the person to be told they are and accept that as true. A 5 year old rubber panty enthusiast would not begin to grasp that idea, let alone its implications. all she knows is that they give her feelings. For the matter to be sexual there has to be some ideational content at a certain level of development that is far too complex for her pre-operational level of deveopment. her range of experience or the context of her action. For me, at age 7, while it was fascinating, it was unpleasant because someone was doing it to me as punishment and softly scolding me, It was being done on my panty, or what the grownups called "chatity [which word I understood only to mean that I should not let other persons touch me there]" area, I could not control the feelings, at the end, "something broke" in me and the feelings became unpleasantly strong, and the feelings "ate me up". As a result of all of these, I felt violated in some very deep way and having anything, epsecially thick, put between my legs has always done the same since I now have a "thing" about keeping my legs closed so that those things do not happen to me again. Also short skirts, which to me, can be lifted easily make me frantic. But that all has to do with what was done to me a few times between the time I was 7 and 10

In most robust cultures, it has been the right of the proper grownups to use whatever part of a child's body they see fit to inculcate a "value". Spanking is properly administered to the buttocks, which is taken to be a sexual region. Kissing is done with the lips, which have also been interpreted as the same. In Latin cultures, the grnamother will often grab a young boy's widdler and express pride in him. Heterosexaul males indulge in butt-grabbing as a way of saying "I've got your ass [an extreme expression of 'I've got your back' meaning that I can be depended on to 'save your ass' if trouble comes up]". Dr. Dean Edell reported, in a segment of his show about giggling that "a little girl will giggle if you put your hand 'where you shouldn't'".Massage of a young girl's "special area" by grown ladies in an embarrassing context and to the point where it produces strong feelings was used in my area to both punish, or "chastize" and to promote chastity. Rubber, meaning the smooth, waterproof material used for baby panties because mostly the girl's "old rubber panties" were used by dusting the inside of them with baby powder to keep them from sticking and putting them on her. Even the normal movements without any rubbing would cause feelings so these mught be put on a half-hour or so, under a pair of moderately snug panties, before the "main event". Being a very smooth material, rubber produces such strong feelings that a 4 or 5 year old found the whole thing excruciating so that when she is 12 or so she can be told that if she were not chaste, the result will be "those feeling you got when you were five with the rubber panties [or in more elaborate uses 'rubber diaper']". When I was 5, my aunt Oretta threatened me with the rubber diaper. I did not know how it was used or what it did, but the idea of having rubber put on my special area was frightening as I was quite aware of what baby panties and rubber sheets felt like and that my chastity area would get strong feelings without me wanting them to come. When I did get it used on me between the ages of 7 and 9, I knew why I was frightened. Im my area, this was a somewhat common feminine alternative to spanking, which was considered too coarse and uncouth to be used on girls. Having these feelings forceably caused by another at a strength that was all-consuming ("eats you up" as it was put) is exceedingly unpleasant to a 7 or 9 or even 11 year old girl, or even the very occasional boy on whom it was used as a result of his complaining too much that girls had it "too easy": Being also put in a dress as part of this did not do anything for his feeling, either. However, that was super-rare as it was feared that even moderate amounts of this would sissify him. Especially in c1950. Even social workers did not bat an eyelash at it with some even recommending it as an alternative to spanking for little girls by women in whose charge these girls were

So, the difference between sex and something else appears to be level of developmnt and experience, context and intent more than the object, what parts of the body or even the feelings are involved. There is, however a gender component to this. "Gender" here means things, while not sex-specific, are associated with sex. For example, a boy or man can wear a lovely dress or tiara as easily as a girl. Also play with dolls. However, by virutue of his physical sex, he is expected not to. The grownups in most nursery/children-related activities, were overwhelmingly in the majority female as it was a feminine job, the skills of which were taught by playing with dolls, to care for the child for which job the mother was home or if she worked, an aunt, grandmother or lady was selected for. So deep-rooted a part of the fabric of our culture is this that any male who seeks a position in the care of young children is suspect on many levels such as questioning his manhood for starters, and most persons are appalled at the idea of small children growing up in a home without a strong, integrated female presence and attention (in case you do not know it, lying about such matters to pollsters and other "snoops" is an honored and repected cottage industry and for many motives). Part of the context of the fetish-related root cause included the secondary female sex characteristics that related to body type, voice and appearance at the time of the incident(s). As an example; most spanking fetishists describe being put across the lap of, in 95% of cases, a female (mother, aunt, nanny, etc) and spanked while getting strong stimulation of the sex organ from the physical pressure of laying directly on it, all of which gets mooshed together into a whole the technical term for which is "gestalt [a German word that has no direct translation but is interpreted]". Now the corset, bra, stockings and garter thing is added at the post-puberty stage and does sexualize the matter, but they are not inherent in the origins. All that was done to me by ladies was done wearing dresses with me lying on a bed often after a long tickling session that left me past the point of crying and just about able to move, and that is how I understand these things and since my dresses were quite a bit shorter than theirs, skirt length became an issue for me and the shorter the dress, the more easily lifted and also the more "baby" it made me feel. I must have had cute legs although I would be teased about having bony knees

Now, this is an age-play Adutl Little Girl site. This means several things:

It should be with this understanding that any images are viewed or reading material understood.