Wednesday, July 22, 2009

a new vein of fetish imagery and stories?

isn't it wonderful stumbling on a new blog or site full of imagery and stories you've never seen before especially when you spend all your spare time working on your own blog? i'm constantly pleased in second life to meet people who've not heard of Dollsrealm and when they come back to me they're overjoyed at finding a spot dedicated to their own seamingly private fetish.

recently i was sent a link to Brenda Big Tits Blog which is made up of her found photo's and TG oriented captions. now the TG part is somewhat lost for me but her choice of imagery and stories are very good. is this an entirely new area for me to explore?

i sort of tune out - or speed read over the parts that really aren't relevant but her lust for latex and transformation outweighs that by a massive amount. so i sent her an email two weeks ago and we've been chatting back and forth ever since.

to inspire her more i emailed a zipped collection of photo's (as i know how little feedback and and contact us bloggers get) and she's just made a composite story on her latest entry here.

she makes an astute observation in the new entry:

The thing I find interesting, and would like to talk about today, is how two completely different genders (or biological sexes, if you must) could want the exact same things for themselves. I mean, I'm taking 'bout the sleek body, mind control, sexual objectification and all that jazz. Really, the only difference is that Group A begins the story as male, and Group B as female: the end result is completely indistinguishable.

the above images are some of my favorite from her site and i plan on sending more images over to weaver her magic on. do go have a look and don't be shy in leaving feedback or comments as its what all us bloggers thrive on (besides the hit counter that is).



kayo said...

The Alien photo (first) is STOLEN!!! This photo is from or from On this picture is my friend Tanya from Warsaw.

Brenda Big Tits said...

Thank you for directing me to the source, kayo. As Ms Latex so nicely explained, all of my work is based on "found" images -- they all are obtained from open sources, I do not profit from my work, and never claimed to have invented the images myself.

What I do is provide the words, i.e., my interpretation of images that I find provocative. I do not consider the images "stolen" any more than any other blogger who posts images. Again, thank you for directing me to the source, as I must confess that I do not know the original source of pretty much all of my images.

Anyway, thank you so much, Ms Latex, for this very generous plug! I cannot wait to do more work for you!

jeandoll said...

Third one is first one I seen that actually has some literary merit

SanderO said...

The interesting comment fails to note that while both genders start at different places and end at up the same one... the destination is an "exaggerated" female.

Perhaps this is due to the fact that the female form is visually more exciting to begin with and in recent years it is the female who primps and preens and dresses (or undresses and reveals) to display erotic appeal.

The has been a renewed interest in toned male bodies and styling of the male as more of a sex object such as Calvin Klien ads, but this look has not been adopted by the vast majority of males who are content to "consume" the female in her costuming as seductress. And many females have literally bought into this game and measure themselves by the form, their hair and their clothes, run out and get cosmetic surgery to transform themselves into what is the perceived perfection.

Fetish seems to sort of push this to the point of objectification where the personality is completely submerged to the form and the "clothes" and such concepts as the doll surface. A doll of course has not character or personality, but is in the form a female who presumably does.

Of course you can destroy your personality inside a fetish look, but you can create one or simply hide inside the the shell you create. This is, apparently to many "freeing" in that the fetish character is expected to behave in ways that the "normal" character wouldn't. Thsi accounts for, in my opinion, most fetishists.

But the out ones, so to speak, are akin to "sex workers" who embrace the image and don't hide inside it. These people will expose their faces and their existence, more or less, since their fetish IS their character. So you'll see this in mostly females as CDs or gender benders have a harder row to hoe in the real world compared with eroticized females who can wear latex leggings and 6 inch heels as "normal" attire.

VanillaLite said...

Yes, an astute observation. The way I see it, it mainly comes down to dominance and submission. This is a subject that’s bigger than sexuality, even. Most people have bosses, who they’re required to be submissive to, for instance. The mountaineer is struggling for dominance against the mountain, but is, for the most part, submissive to it and the elements.

It’s a vast over-simplification to assume women are submissive and men dominant, or even that one particular woman or man is.

Asudem, I would hazard a guess that you’re no pushover at the office. You may get a bit of a kick from giving the junior staff a hard time. The subject of this blog, though, is the opposite of that. Objectification, something so frowned upon by the feminist movement, can have an intoxicating appeal. Like climbing a mountain, it is not an easy thing, but the rewards are great.

Where this starts to get confronting for, say, a TG, is the question “Is the desire really to change gender, or is it more a quest for the dominance/submission traditionally associated with it?”

I think kink is extremely healthy, as it allows both partners to safely explore their many needs and desires. Western Vanilla relationships, on the other hand, are pretty much guaranteed to include abuses or frustrations.

VanillaLite said...

As an equal opportunities confronter(!), I’ll add a second question. “Is this pic hot?”

And would that change if I were to mention that this was a transgendered person? According to this interview with Isis from ANTM, a number of catwalk models are TG, and have lost their jobs if that’s been discovered.

So society has created a culture where many desire to fit into a very narrow definition of attractiveness, be objectified and be ogled en masse. And society then savagely cuts down those it doesn’t feel fit that definition.

It would be a happier world if people could love the skin they’re in, and society could accept them.

Salpecam said...

A great source. I find that many of my on-line contacts, like myself, are more interested in the end result than the start point. Some transformed dolls begin as genetic males, some as genetic females; some of the former are physically unaltered while others are transgendered; My personal feelings are that the attractiveness or "sexiness" of the final doll is independent of this status.
In my quest to put my gf in the "perfect" doll suit, I have discovered that the suit being female is what defines (for me) the gender of the final "doll product". I suspect even further that this versatility - whereby any participant, regardless of starting gender, can be put in a doll suit and become a female doll - is a particular advantage of the practice of using a suit to achieve dollification. Especially, in my experience, if the suit is as all-enclosing as possible. The additional advantage of a fully-enclosing suit is that the restrictiveness can be an advantage in the suppression of the physical features of the occupant. Genetic men who are new to assuming a female role can have limited success in adopting feminine posture, movement and speech. A doll suit that is chosen to be severely restrictive of movement, or which suppresses the occupant's ability to speak because of either its style or its physical construction, can eliminate these limitations by default.