Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias?

submitted by worried19 from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

The male libido + being white & middle-class.

[–]worried19[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Do men of color and lower class men have fewer instances of paraphilias? It would be interesting to see some research in this area.

Anecdotally, I don't believe I have ever seen an AGP black trans woman in the media. They all seem to be the HSTS type.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't believe I have ever seen an AGP black trans woman in the media. They all seem to be the HSTS type.

Quite a few high profile black male trans persons in the media strike me as definitely both HSTS and AGP: Munroe Bergdorf, Cece Telfer, Andraya Yearwood, Terry Miller, just to name a few. But none of these are "lower class."

Being AGP goes hand in hand with high levels of narcissism and is an expression of male narcissism.

AGP and HSTS never have been mutually exclusive. There have always been homosexual transvestites, transsexuals and and "transgender" males who are AGP. There's nothing about being a gay male that precludes being AGP. AGP is an expression of male sexual desire, male narcissism, male fantasy, male self-involvement. Anyone male can be AGP.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Blanchard once mentioned that there is no evidence of autogynaephiles in non-Western cultures. Typically, differences between Western cultures & other cultures are class-based. Those same differences can typically be seen within Western cultures between the working classes & the middle & upper classes. The white part isn't a catalyst in any way, I don't think, it's just that white people tend to be thoroughly middle-class (even their grandparents were middle-class).

I think it's more than just a coincidence that almost all the famous white male trans people are non-homosexual transsexuals (maybe NikkieTutorials is a HSTS?) while none of the famous black ones are.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Blanchard once mentioned that there is no evidence of autogynaephiles in non-Western cultures.

Did he look?

Typically, differences between Western cultures & other cultures are class-based.

Huh?

white people tend to be thoroughly middle-class (even their grandparents were middle-class).

WTF? So there's no & never has been any white working class or "poor white trash" people anywhere in the world?

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

I think I'd trust Blanchard to know whether it exists in other cultures. As the guy who coined it, he'd have motivation to find it, or be aware of someone else finding having found it.

Western cultures are typically individualist & have a low power distance compared to non-Western cultures which tend to be collectivist with a high power distance. It's based on class, because Mexico & Russia culturally share more in common than they do with countries closer to them with people more genetically similar to them.

What I said: white people tend to be thoroughly middle-class (even their grandparents were middle-class).

What you said: So there's no & never has been any white working class or "poor white trash" people anywhere in the world?

Tend ≠ exceptions don't exist.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I think I'd trust Blanchard to know whether it exists in other cultures. As the guy who coined it, he'd have motivation to find it, or be aware of someone else finding having found it.

Knowing quite a bit about the many blind spots & presumptions of white Western men in academia over time, I think you are very naive to be so trusting.

I am willing to give credence that AGP doesn't exist outside the West. Since I see AGP as an expression of sexualized male narcissism, it makes sense to me that it would be tied to Western individualism. Moreover, since AGP involves access to FL looking glasses & to the domestic spaces & lifestyles that afford males with enough personal privacy & time to use looking glass as masturbatory aids as AGPs do, I suspect this is a paraphilia that only develops in situations of relative material comfort and differentiated rooms in dwellings. Still, I would not assume that Blanchard ever probed deeply about other cultures. After all, in his own culture & the culture where his male patients came from, it never once occurred to him over many decades to consider how the male behaviors he green-lighted would affect women & children.

I questioned your contention that

white people tend to be thoroughly middle-class (even their grandparents were middle-class).

And now you come back saying that

Western cultures are typically individualist & have a low power distance compared to non-Western cultures which tend to be collectivist with a high power distance. Mexico & Russia culturally share more in common than they do with countries closer to them with people more genetically similar to them.

Which has me scratching my head.

Western cultures are all white & middle class? Individualistic = middle class?

How does this connect to Mexico & Russia? Are you saying they are white & middle class - or the opposite? How are Russia & Mexico more similar to one another than to countries closer to them? Mexico is a country with a large indigenous population of "brown" people colonized by white Europeans from Spain that still has a powerful white elite class. Last I looked, Russia had a very different kind of history and demographics. Is it me, or aren't people from Russia and most the rest of the USSR largely "white"? It's been many years, but I've been to Mexico & to Russia and I dunno what you are talking about.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Well, I also did quite a bit of searching myself. I made a post exploring whether "transbians exist outside the West". I found that all "trans people" outside the West weren't trans people at all, but homosexuals. That post alone I think debunks the idea that trans people are internally the opposite sex.

There are 6 dimensions of culture. Each dimension has a scale with two opposing poles. Generally, Western/middle-class cultures conform to one side of all the poles vs. working-class cultures that generally conform to the other side of the poles.

Mexicans & Russian are have only class in common, which is why their cultures are more similar to one another than they are to the US or Europe, respectively. Russia was a country of illiterate peasants during WW1, which is why their revolution was so successful. The Soviet Union was a working-class dictatorship. The marketisation of Russia is fairly recent (about 30 years ago). It's these working-class roots that show through in their culture.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I found that all "trans people" outside the West weren't trans people at all, but homosexuals.

Just to be clear, you know that with very rare exceptions, they were/are all male homosexuals too.

Mexicans & Russian are have only class in common, which is why their cultures are more similar to one another than they are to the US or Europe, respectively.

I don't know what you mean when you say these countries "have only class in common." Can you explain?

Russia was a country of illiterate peasants during WW1, which is why their revolution was so successful. The Soviet Union was a working-class dictatorship. The marketisation of Russia is fairly recent (about 30 years ago). It's these working-class roots that show through in their culture.

The fact that a huge swathe of the population of Russia consisted of illiterate peasants doesn't mean Russia was entirely made up of such at the time of the revolution or before. Russia was a monarchy with a very wealthy and longstanding aristocracy & upper class as well as a mercantile class. The tsar was the richest man in the world. Lots of people in Russia were literate and learned. Many were well-educated and highly accomplished.

Changes in class dynamics in Russia began occurring due to government reforms instituted in the 19th century, particularly when serfdom was abolished in 1861. But there was quite a wealthy, educated, highly sophisticated upper crust in Russia for centuries. Read or watch some Tolstoy, or some material about him. The movie about his last days is good, and I enjoyed the version of Anna Karenina with Kiera Knightley. There's also Pasternak's Dr Zhivago.

The people behind the revolutions that finally resulted in the Bolsehvik revolution in October 1917 were educated middle-class Russians. Like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Kerensky

There are 6 dimensions of culture. Each dimension has a scale with two opposing poles. Generally, Western/middle-class cultures conform to one side of all the poles vs. working-class cultures that generally conform to the other side of the poles.

Says who? Sounds like simplistic, sophomoric bollocks to me. Also, what does it have to do with what we are discussing?

BTW, I hope you know that the terms "working class" and "peasant class" were/are not synonymous.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Wow, is that all you ever do is dwell on exceptions? The working-class population of Russia in 1917 was over 80% of the population! But you're here to inform me that they haven't got a working-class culture, because (drumroll) the monarchy weren't working-class!?? Absolutely redonkulous!

And yes, peasant-class & working-class are synonymous in this case. There are only two classes, culturally: the working-classes & the middle/upper-classes. Russia didn't just assassinate the Tsar, it went out of its way to torture to death &/or work to death the bourgeoisie, further explaining why their culture is so working-class today.

And no, watching the movie Nicholas and Alexandra is not going to give me great insight into the Russian population's class or culture.

Says who? Sounds like simplistic, sophomoric bollocks to me. Also, what does it have to do with what we are discussing?

Any & every trend or pattern sounds like rubbish to you, because as long as 100% of something isn't occurring 100% of the time to a degree of 100%, it supposedly doesn't exist. The reason class is relevant, is for the sae reason that sex is: both are determinants of the presence of paraphilia.

Just to be clear, you know that with very rare exceptions, they were/are all male homosexuals too.

You mean that they are male? Yes.

I don't know what you mean when you say these countries "have only class in common." Can you explain?

Mexico & Russia are on different continents, have different languages, different ethnicities etc. etc. they haven't got anything in common except the class of their populations, which explains the similarities in their cultures (referring to Hofstede's 6 dimensions, not superficial stuff like food & clothing)

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You didn't originally say that

The working-class population of Russia in 1917 was over 80% of the population!

On the contrary, you said

Russia was a country of illiterate peasants during WW1, which is why their revolution was so successful.

Those are two entirely different claims.

I pointed out Russia at the time of WW1 was a monarchy & oligarchy with an aristocracy & mercantile class, and that the revolutionaries who overthrew the government in the early 20th century were literate & highly educated, middle class persons like Kerensky. Whereas you claimed that the whole country at the time were illiterate peasants.

You said earlier that

Mexicans & Russian are have only class in common, which is why their cultures are more similar to one another than they are to the US or Europe, respectively.

I asked what you meant by "have only class in common." I asked you to explain. Which you still haven't. And now you come back with this:

Mexico & Russia are on different continents, have different languages, different ethnicities etc. etc. they haven't got anything in common except the class of their populations, which explains the similarities in their cultures

To which I again say: huh and WTF?

And yes, peasant-class & working-class are synonymous in this case. There are only two classes, culturally: the working-classes & the middle/upper-classes. Russia didn't just assassinate the Tsar, it went out of its way to torture to death &/or work to death the bourgeoisie, further explaining why their culture is so working-class today.

No, in practical & theoretical terms, the peasant class is different to the working class. One was/is agrarian, the other industrial.

I don't understand the claims you are making about the "bourgeoisie" in the Soviet system.

Your bombastic writing style makes figuring out your points unduly difficult.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not really, working class and peasants weren't synonyms. Peasnats had much less rights and there were two types of peasants, one was basically slaves, as they were not able to marry or move without permission of the landlord they were working for. Other part of peasants were more close to working class, and mostly were living in cities, but they still were lacking a lot of rights. I believe there only around 3-5% of working class and 80-85% of peasants during that time and rest were aristocracy, military or merchants.

For some reason those peasants in villages who had absolutely no rights are not called slaves, even thought they basically were them.

Later it started slowly to change and peasants were given their own pieces of land, which still was owned by landlord, but at least they had almost all they grown there for themselves now.

which is why their revolution was so successful.

That is not so much true as well, because revolution was aimed for bad workers.

In villages peasants who were good working and were able to have good harvests were called Kulak's, and they were attacked by people who were making revolution. In most cases those who came to rule were peasants who were not able to work properly. Later Kulak's were called any peasant who was not giving their last grain to new governemnt.

Later new wave of good working peasants appeared, but during Stalin they were destroyed completely and often put in prison or murdered. So only bad working peasants left who were working "because it needed" and not because they liked to work or know how to work. That led to huge drops in harvesting, as most people who knew what to do were in prison or murdered.

[–]worried19[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Blanchard once mentioned that there is no evidence of autogynaephiles in non-Western cultures.

That certainly tracks with what we know of so-called "third sexes" around the world. They seem to all be either gender nonconforming male homosexuals or eunuchs. Have there ever been historical instances of them having sex with women?

I think it's more than just a coincidence that almost all the famous white male trans people are non-homosexual transsexuals (maybe NikkieTutorials is a HSTS?) while none of the famous black ones are.

Nikkie is HSTS, I'm sure. I don't think we can even say about Jazz Jennings since whatever that child's natural sexuality would have been was destroyed by doctors.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Have there ever been historical instances of them having sex with women

Not that I know of. In the past "two spirit" were known as 'berdache', which is the word for: passive homosexual male, catamite/bardash. We just changed the name, thereby erasing gay people. The only way to marry someone of the same sex in these cultures is to take on the gender role of the opposite sex. It's only been possible in nations with very large populations for gay people to be able to find other gay people to be with.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People of lower class has less time on such stuff. They just mentioned less.

I don't believe I have ever seen an AGP black trans woman in the media.

Remove "trans" from the equasion and everything will start making sense from that point on. It does not mean they don't exist, it means they just not focused and not given opportunities to speak (and they are often more poor, so have less time for post-modernism and more based in reality).

So what we have:

  • In media and in power mostly shown middle/high-class white transwomen. Transmen are rarely mentioned, and if mentioned it is mostly when speaking about periods or pregnancy. Black transwomen are mentioned really rarely and mostly when speaking about sports, especially running. I only saw mentions of black transmen only once, and even then it was accidental. Asian transmen and transwomen are forgotten completely.

If we replace "gender identity" with "sex", we will have picture which corresponds to current reality about society in general:

  • In media and in power mostly shown middle/high-class white men. Women are rarely mentioned, and if mentioned it is often when speaking about periods or pregnancy. Black men are mentioned rarely and mostly when speaking about sports, especially running. Black women you can count on one hand. Asians are often forgotten.

Makes sense now?

And it is same everywhere, if you replace "gender identity" with "birth sex" - it will make perfect sense and will be same as for general population.

21 transgender politicians were elected in 2020 in USA? 20 of them are transwomen, 1 is transman, 1 is black. Same tendency as in politics if take according to sexes - most are white men, sometimes black men and sometimes women.

And same with everything.