Responding to “Is Tomboy Humiliation Truly Patrician?”

Responding to “Is Tomboy Humiliation Truly Patrician?”

First of all I must congratulate the author on his choice of image for his post. Truly impressive work, and commendable.

However, thereafter, or rather in the ‘foretext betwixt that image and the title, is where  his arguments lose their traction and he reveals himself to be a knave in the ways of patricianly fetishes.

Allow me to explain the truth as I have ascertained it through years of meditation upon titillation.

It is only through dominating female efforts to engage in male performance that the distinction of the sexes can be properly maintained to allow for the reproduction of civilization. A tomboy is in effect a woman of Lightning and thus ineffective without the application of Sun, which is necessary to provide structure to behavior. Humiliating tomboys is thus an act of sexual correction. Since it is the aristocratic ethos to “rule well,” there can be nothing more befitting of an aristocratic libido than to spread Sun into tomboyish women. It is thus inherently patrician in nature as a fetish, to chaperone dissenting women into wearing dresses rather than jeans and to tell them how pretty they look despite their protests.

The largest problem I find with the counter-argument is as follows:

Another interpretation is that this is a pseudo analysis that covers over the fact that the tomboy is not truly androgynous but is merely a female attempting to don a masculine disguise.

It must be clearly stated that the tomboy is not the reverse trap. Tomboys are ultimately behavioral creatures whereas reverse traps are not merely cross-dressing but engaging in a total male appearance. Thus it is a distinction of vanity. Where as the tomboy wishes to act in a more boyish manner and thus dons apparel that minimizes the expression of her femininity so as to facilitate such behavior (e.g. spats or shorts replacing the skirt), the reverse trap wishes to be perceived visually as male. A tomboy does not wish to appear male but adopts elements of male fashion to facilitate male hobbies and behaviors. A reverse trap wants to pass for male. These are different and a failure to distinguish between the two represents a slackening of one’s perceptive senses. Tomboys are not reverse traps, and the latter is a separate, and far more plebeian, complex.

In conclusion I am yet to discover anything which would indicate that tomboy humiliation is not in fact the patrician’s fetish in the cited response piece. I hope this discussion serves to further our inquiries into what constitutes true patrician taste.


Scurvy McMango,

The Tropicarian Institute

Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands


2 thoughts on “Responding to “Is Tomboy Humiliation Truly Patrician?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s