Yes, even Buck Angel

submitted by DifferentAirGC from i.imgur.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]reluctant_commenter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (44 children)

This is not necessarily true. She could be enjoying sex involving dicks because of a fetish, as opposed to her sexual orientation.

We often assume people's sexual orientation here, but fetishes can obscure sexual orientation-- and fetishes are a VERY relevant component of this conversation, given the prevalence of autogynephilia among self-described "transbians" and their female counterparts, transmen who seek to date gay men.

There was a study showing that some GAMP men (gynandromorphophiles; "chasers" of transwomen) had a heterosexual arousal pattern-- both physiological arousal and self-reported arousal to women, but not to men-- yet were highly aroused by autogynephilic-presenting men. It's not really being "into getting dick"-- it's about the fetish.

[–]strictly 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (43 children)

This is not necessarily true. She could be enjoying sex involving dicks because of a fetish, as opposed to her sexual orientation.

Then you have a different definition of female homosexuality if you include women sexually into penises as "lesbians" too. Conflating lesbians with women into penis creates practical problems for lesbians, that is why I support dropping the T as I want that conflation to end.

We often assume people's sexual orientation here, but fetishes can obscure sexual orientation-- and fetishes are a VERY relevant component of this conversation

Sexual orientation is not the same thing as the etiology so if someone's fetish makes them into both sexes they are still bi.

There was a study showing that some GAMP men (gynandromorphophiles; "chasers" of transwomen) had a heterosexual arousal pattern-- both physiological arousal and self-reported arousal to women, but not to men-- yet were highly aroused by autogynephilic-presenting men. It's not really being "into getting dick"-- it's about the fetish.

They are into dick though, they just like dick on males with breasts and on cross-sex hormones. I see that as bisexual/heteroflexible. If they want to create a different word for their type of bisexuality I am not against that, but they are not heterosexual if they are into some males too.

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (42 children)

you have a different definition of female homosexuality if you include women sexually into penises as "lesbians" too

That is not what I said. I said: "She could be enjoying sex involving dicks because of a fetish." What I am trying to get at, is that we can't always assume sexual orientation from behavior alone. If a man in a porno fucked a another man, we can't assume he's gay, for example.

Conflating lesbians with women into penis creates practical problems for lesbians, that is why I support dropping the T as I want that conflation to end.

I agree-- but that's not what I did.

so if someone's fetish makes them into both sexes they are still bi.

That is not what a fetish is. If someone is into both sexes, they are bisexual. Someone with a fetish for autogynephiles is not attracted to the autogynephiles' sex (the fact that the AGPers are male), they are aroused by the behaviors and appearances of the autogynephiles. Blanchard calls this "pseudobisexuality". And there are, in fact, some men who exhibit heterosexual arousal patterns (both physiologically-measured and by their own report), who still will date trans-identified men because their fetish is autogynephilia and it overrides the fact that they are not aroused by men or otherwise attracted to men. I'll link a source for this. edit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26498424/

If they want to create a different word for their type of bisexuality I am not against that, but they are not heterosexual if they are into some males too.

Sex researchers would say differently. (edit: because those males are not actually "into" other males, they are "into" their fetish.)

I totally agree that all of this is harming LGB people, and homosexual women in particular. But, when paraphilias are involved, it is difficult for us to really know a person's sexual orientation from just one piece of information.

Also-- just a side note, you wouldn't happen to be an alt for StrictlyDykely, would you? Was going to say, if you were, haven't seen you in a while, hello and hope you're doing well. :) But no worries if not haha.

[–]strictly 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (41 children)

I said: "She could be enjoying sex involving dicks because of a fetish."

If she enjoys sex involving male genitalia then she is into male genitalia and not a lesbian.

we can't always assume sexual orientation from behavior alone.

Yeah, if she reluctantly tried sex with male genitalia and hated sex with male genitalia then that might be a case where we shouldn't judge her sexual orientation from one behavior alone, but if she pursues sex with male genitalia because she enjoys sex with male genitalia she's obviously not a lesbian.

If a man in a porno fucked a another man, we can't assume he's gay, for example.

I wouldn't assume he is straight either, and if he enjoys sex with male genitalia I definitely wouldn't consider him straight.

Someone with a fetish for autogynephiles is not attracted to the autogynephiles' sex (the fact that the AGPers are male)

They are though, they are attracted to male trans people specifically because they are male, as in, the maleness/penis of someone with breasts/curves enhances things for them, they just want maleness packaged in estrogen.

EDIT: I realize you don't count being into male genitalia as being into males but I do. Few things are as uniquely male as the male genitalia, a person can't enjoy sex with male genitalia without enjoying sex with males as males are the only ones who have male genitalia.

I'll link a source for this. edit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26498424/

I have read a lot of sex research, including the linked study. I generally don't disagree with the data but what researchers choose to call things. There was one study where they put women who said they were kinsey 4 in the homosexual category and then they presented homosexual women as fluid when these kinsey 4 women seemed into men. I don't reject the data that showed that these kinsey 4 women were sexually into men, I disagree that Kinsey 4 women should categorized as homosexual in the first place. Similarly I don't disagree that there are different types/etiologies of bisexuality but that doesn't make someone who is into both sexes strictly monosexual.

Sexual orientation =/= the etiology, for all we know there could be several different biological mechanisms that could make someone end up a certain sexual orientation. Identical twins don't always have the same sexual orientation, so same genes, different outcomes and sexual orientation is the outcome, i.e the sexes the person sexually orient towards. I don't disagree that it's possible that person who would otherwise be biologically more predisposed toward heterosexuality could have a paraphila making them end up bisexual instead (paraphilas like autogynephilia often start early). They would have a different etiology of their bisexuality than someone without the paraphila but they are still sexually into both sexes either way. Homosexuals might not all have the same etiology for their homosexuality either. If a woman who would otherwise been more biologically predisposed toward asexuality but developed let's say an early "vagina fetish" lol making her sexually into women the outcome is still homosexual.

Also-- just a side note, you wouldn't happen to be an alt for StrictlyDykely

Sorry, no.

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (40 children)

If she enjoys sex involving male genitalia then she is into male genitalia

Not necessarily. That is the point I'm trying to make. A paraphilia is about the power of the human mind. If she WERE into male genitalia then I would also call her a lesbian. But a paraphilia is a psychological disorder, and it can lead to behavior that runs counter to one's sexual orientation. If you do not believe in this empirically-supported definition of what paraphilias are, then I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.

if she pursues sex with male genitalia because she enjoys sex with male genitalia she's obviously not a lesbian.

I agree. I'm saying that we don't know that that's WHY she is pursuing sex with men. Again, as with the porn example-- a man could be "pursuing sex with men" because he is trying to make money. That is a different reason than a paraphilia, but another reason for the behavior besides sexual orientation.

EDIT: I realize you don't count being into male genitalia as being into males but I do.

No, that is not what I think. That is literally the opposite of what I have said this entire thread. edit: Just because we are disagreeing does not mean that I believe in gender ideology or that I am a TRA. Everything I am saying is consistent with a worldview in which homosexual female = exclusive same-sex attraction. This is not an attack on female homosexuals. I apologize for coming across that way, if that bothered you.

There was one study where they put women who said they were kinsey 4 in the homosexual category

That sounds like a poor operationalization of the definition of "homosexual women," I agree.

Similarly I don't disagree that there are different types/etiologies of bisexuality but that doesn't make someone who is into both sexes strictly monosexual.

Fetish != bisexuality... and it seems trivializing to bisexuality that you are suggesting that. There are heterosexual AGP people, bisexual AGP people, and homosexual AGP people, for example.

I don't disagree that it's possible that person who would otherwise be biologically more predisposed toward heterosexuality could have a paraphila making them end up bisexual instead (paraphilas like autogynephilia often start early).

It sounds like you base your definition of homosexuality more on behavior, as opposed to attraction to the person. A man who has a paraphilia for attraction to autogynephilia, is not attracted to the autopgynephiles he has sex with-- he is attracted to the concept of the fetish, in what some researchers suggest is a "target location error".

Sexual orientation is about attraction to humans and humans genitals; paraphilias are about attraction to things other than humans and human genitals. I am saying, a person with a paraphilia is not attracted to people who they engage in sexual activity with, regarding their paraphilia. It's a different axis entirely than sexual orientation.

[–]strictly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (39 children)

Not necessarily. That is the point I'm trying to make.

I don't see a distinction between enjoying sex involving male genitalia and being into/attracted to male genitalia, it's the same thing in my view.

If you do not believe in this empirically-supported definition of what paraphilias are, then I guess we shall have to agree to disagree.

I am not denying people can have paraphilias, I'm saying paraphiliac sexual attractions are still sexual attractions. A sexual attraction might be considered disordered or not, but it's still there, and if the paraphilia influences which sexes they are attracted to that's just reality even if it's disordered. It seems you don't count something as being a sexual attraction to a person/genitalia if you consider the attraction disordered but I don't think attractions to people/genitalia by definition have to be healthy or non-paraphilic to exist/count.

a man could be "pursuing sex with men" because he is trying to make money. That is a different reason than a paraphilia

Yeah, if he pursues men to make money he would be doing it for monetary reason, and if he did it because of an paraphilia he would be doing for sexual reasons. Having sexual reasons to want sex with men is, in my view, having a sexual interest in men.

Just because we are disagreeing does not mean that I believe in gender ideology or that I am a TRA. Everything I am saying is consistent with a worldview in which homosexual female = exclusive same-sex attraction.

I haven't called you a TRA. But we define exclusive same-sex attraction differnetly, which means we define homsexual differently too.

It sounds like you base your definition of homosexuality more on behavior, as opposed to attraction to the person.

I base it on attraction but I think people are generally more likely to initiate sex with people they are attracted to than repulsed by so I would doubt the sincerity of lesbian-identifying woman who repeatedly sleeps with men. I disagree with your take on GAMP (and I have read the research and I know what AGP/ETLE is). A man with GAMP who sleeps with a male trans people isn't merely behaviorally having sex with males, they attracted to these males and can fall in love with these males. It's an attraction to other people. Paraphilic people don't lack the capacity to be attracted to other people. I know someone with GAMP irl and he was in love with his partners, he just seems to always fall for people who are male and trans.

No disrespect but I think we disagree about most things so we might have to accept that we just disagree.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Quoting some salient points for my commentary.

/u/reluctant_commenter :

But a paraphilia is a psychological disorder, and it can lead to behavior that runs counter to one's sexual orientation.

She could be enjoying sex involving dicks because of a fetish, as opposed to her sexual orientation.

fetishes can obscure sexual orientation

/u/strictly :

A sexual attraction might be considered disordered or not, but it's still there, and if the paraphilia influences which sexes they are attracted to that's just reality even if it's disordered.

Sexual orientation is not the same thing as the etiology so if someone's fetish makes them into both sexes they are still bi.

I realize you don't count being into male genitalia as being into males but I do.

I like strictly's point about etiology and orientation. My understanding of regular homosexual men is that there are probably distinct etiologies that results in male androphilia. Fraternal birth order, genetics, epigenetics, etc. Those sorts of things are interesting in sex research. In terms of social movements, they're completely irrelevant. So, there's two different worthwhile contexts for "sexual orientation" here. As is the case with me, only interested in sadomasochism with both sexes and completely uninterested in sexed bodies or sex, I maintain "exclusive paraphile" as my orientation and sometimes use "bisexual" as my identity. Homophobes are not checking my receipts. This sort of scheme may appeal to your respective interests on this topic and resolve them.

reluctantcommenter, I treat paraphilias (GAMP/masochism/AGP/etc) and copulatory interests, with phenotypically normal partners, (gay/straight/bi/ace) of being the same hierarchy. One can be straight and gamp. Or gay and a masochist. Or just a masochist and neither gay/straight/bi/ace. Someone who is only GAMP is not straight nor bi nor ace nor gay. Fetishes can absolutely make discerning sexual orientation interesting. If we limit sexual orientation to mean a copulatory interest with phenotypically normal, adult, consenting partners, as does the domain of sex research, then it's fairly easy to discern: "Who do you _want to fuck?" The clause of phenotypically normal omits people with an interest in bodies where the primary and secondary sexual characteristics/gender presentation do not match as is the case of GyneAndroMorphoPhilia. That sort of thing falls into the paraphilic category. Someone with only a paraphilia might be considered to not have a sexual orientation--not the same thing as asexuality--I'll cover the expanse of that phrase in a bit. (I wouldn't consider an exclusive paraphile to be asexual/anerotic, esp wrt attraction to others based on the paraphilia.)

But at the end of the day it's all just a semantic argument, isn't it? The lines have to be drawn up somewhere. I'm inclined to use the definitions of sex research, as there are some fairly well-educated, smart people sitting around thinking about this stuff. It's an appeal to authority. But their definitions have certainly not been adopted by the mainstream, nor do I really expect them to. I also use the definitions of sex research because they are more precise instruments useful for untangling a whole mess of human sexual desire. If a guy tells me he's bi, I'm curious if he's straight & GAMP, just GAMP, or actually bisexual, because those are all very different things.

But then there are a few sex researchers, Bailey comes to mind, who say that the phrase "sexual orientation" should refer to (especially men) somebody's consistent pattern of arousal, no matter what that thing is that turns them on. (DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-09556-1_3) I'm not certain if he would clarify that to exclude the paraphilias. If this is his standpoint, even Bailey is wise enough to not publically share that opinion with that kind of specificity.

Making all these terms that describe their essential phenomena fit in a neat fashion with a perfect typology sure is a challenge. Getting people to agree to that typology is a different challenge. But, I'd consider the differing contexts--social movements? or sex research? Etc.

EDIT: for quote clarity (newlines)

[–]strictly 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

In terms of social movements, they're completely irrelevant.

Yeah, I am talking more about real life outcome from a sociological perspective.

I maintain "exclusive paraphile" as my orientation and sometimes use "bisexual" as my identity

I don't disagree with either, you are an exclusive paraphile and you have sexual interest in seeking sexual encounters with people of either sex. I sometimes think it could be useful to make a distinction between pansexuality and bisexuality. If we made such distinction we could define bisexuality as being into both male/female bodies (or a subgroup of those bodies) and define pan-sexuality as when the person is interested in sexual interactions but don't really care about the sexed body or the sex of the sexual partner.

if we limit sexual orientation to mean a copulatory interest with phenotypically normal, adult, consenting partners, as does the domain of sex research, then it's fairly easy to discern: "Who do you _want to fuck?"

I see sexual orientation as answer to the question "What are the sexes of the people who you want to fuck" without a clause that only phenotypically normal people count as trans people are part of the general population too. So the honest answer from a person with GAMP would be they want to to fuck both males and females, they just have a specific type in males (but other groups can have types too). Generally I agree that calling them GAMP instead of bisexual would a lot more specific and useful but calling them heterosexual and GAMP would be a lie in my view as they are factually not exclusively attracted to female people.

Someone with only a paraphilia might be considered to not have a sexual orientation--not the same thing as asexuality

In the same way you don't think you an exclusive paraphile should be labeled asexual for lacking non-paraphilc sexual desires for sexual interactions I don't think a nonexclusive paraphile should be called heterosexual/homosexual for lacking non-paraphilc sexual desire for sexual interactions with the same/opposite sex. I assume the reason you don't think an exclusive paraphile should be called asexual is because asexual implies not wanting to sexually interact with people at all so calling exclusive paraphiles asexual would conflate the two groups which would lead to practical problems for both groups. Similarly homosexual/heterosexual doesn't just imply ambivalence for sexual interactions with the undesired sex, it's implies that such sexual interaction would actively be unwanted so lumping them together with nonexclusive paraphiles who don't mind or maybe even desire sexual interactions with that sex would lead to a harmful conflation.

I'm inclined to use the definitions of sex research, as there are some fairly well-educated, smart people sitting around thinking about this stuff. It's an appeal to authority.

Scientists supporting a conflation wouldn't negate the negative effects of the conflation so I wouldn't support it either way. Many scientists support things I don't agree with so I don't automatically trust their judgment.

Regarding Bailey, in research context in might be useful to have a words for sexual patterns that are more etiological in nature and I don't mind that as much even if I can still factually disagree with some definitions they use.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yeah, I am talking more about real life outcome from a sociological perspective.

Yep, it's one of the viewpoints I consider. Sex research isn't (or shouldn't be) concerned with social movements if it wants to stay a pure science. I see this falling by the wayside for social justice. I'd keep the two interests separate.

I sometimes think it could be useful to make a distinction between pansexuality and bisexuality.

It's not a bad distinction to be made, it's just that there are so many vested interests in those words already. The only agreeable way I can use "pansexual" to everybody is by say, describing a group, or an event. For instance, the Burning Man festival is a pansexual community. It does not cater to any one identity specifically. All are welcome. Any other use of the word lights up the typical pan vs bi firestorm. Pan used to be the trans-inclusive "woke" form of bi, but I've seen some churn that pan is now transphobic, when bi used to be considered as such. Sigh.

I assume the reason you don't think an exclusive paraphile should be called asexual is because asexual implies not wanting to sexually interact with people at all.

More or less, yes. It depends on the paraphilia. Some people only like balloons, for instance. That's still not asexuality, which I define as lacking erotic interests: aneroticism. It's analloeroticism--having erotic interests not involving other people. Analloeroticism is widely accepted in the Asexual community as counting as Asexuality. Sometimes, often, actually, that sexual, analloerotic interest is in plain old sex. The Asexual identity needs much more sex research done on it. (E.g. is that autism spectrum, or schizoid personality disorder, etc?) Back to the social aspects of that: An anerotic person and an analloerotic person are going to have very similar life experiences--attitudes about sex, attraction, and relationships. I think it's socially meaningful to lump them into a group called Asexual.

Generally I agree that calling them GAMP instead of bisexual would a lot more specific and useful but calling them heterosexual and GAMP would be a lie in my view as they are factually not exclusively attracted to female people.

Well so I don't think the two words would be in conflict. We're at an interesting point where sexual interests are so varied and diverse, or are at least finally being observed to be so. I don't think it's meaningful to try and lump all of somebody's sexual makeup into just one word. So yes, the example male with GAMP and normal interest in women would be called heterosexual and GAMP, that's what I'm arguing for. Two different fascets of their overall makeup.

Many scientists support things I don't agree with so I don't automatically trust their judgment.

Sure. But what comes first is a common language. My kilometer and your kilometer need to be convertible or interchangeable before we can argue about the speed of light. As far as what I'm calling GAMP goes, the most plain way to describe the phenomena is a sexual interest in people with male primary characteristics and female secondary characteristics. Call it GAMP, call it bisexuality.

You have a good argument for calling it bisexuality, but it falls down to me when there's a lack of interest in male-typical people. I want to use "bisexual" to mean one type of thing, and not assume there are all these various flavors of bisexual. Because we'd have to have the MtF-interested/female interested bisexual. And then the male/female type bisexual.

Regarding Bailey, in research context in might be useful to have a words for sexual patterns that are more etiological in nature...

The only erotic deviation we have any etiological handle on, and not very well, is male androphilia and female gynephilia; gay and lesbian, respectively. It's more of a typology than an etiological understanding presently in sex research.

Similarly homosexual/heterosexual doesn't just imply ambivalence for sexual interactions with the undesired sex, it's implies that such sexual interaction would actively be unwanted so lumping them together with nonexclusive paraphiles who don't mind or maybe even desire sexual interactions with that sex would lead to a harmful conflation.

This is true, but I don't follow you about the conflation.

[–]nosympathy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I want to use "bisexual" to mean one type of thing

I found it funny that you admit this is about what you want.

I don't think it's meaningful to try and lump all of somebody's sexual makeup into just one word.

Because we'd have to have the MtF-interested/female interested bisexual. And then the male/female type bisexual.

I think i finally get why bisexual people just hate being called bisexual, or rather, to have to be "contained" to such a ~simplistic label. To reiterate strictly's argument, the term sexual orientation refers to one thing and one thing only: which sex(es) you are oriented towards. It was never supposed to "contain all of someone's sexual makeup" in one word.

You are losing sight of why these words were even created in the first place. "Homosexuality" was a necessary term that was lacking to combat homophobic/bioessentialists/overall just wrong beliefs about sexuality. Whether for religious or bioessentialists reasons (God/nature created a man and a woman to make babies together; God/nature never meant for you to put your dick in another man's ass/two penises don't go together; etc), creating that word is what enabled us to conceptualize that this won't always be the case for all people, and that it's a completely natural occurrence to be otherwise.

If you are having sex with people, you are interacting with a sexed body. Aside for literal deception, you are always aware of which sex you are interacting with (yes, even GAMPs, as evidenced by the fact that they always seem to find all the ways in which GAMs are so much better than 'cis' women: inability to get pregnant, never get periods, prefer it in the ass, and of course the most important - they have a penis! Very glaringly non-female characteristics wouldn't you say).

When or why or how a person got to that stage is not the point; When or how or why a person wants to have sex with another person is not the point. The point is to protect gay people; homosexuals, people that simply are not attracted to any shape or form of the opposite sex. It doesn't matter if that's irrelevant to the majority, or even 99.99999% of the population and their "sexual makeup". These words are already taken, and it's important that we keep it that way.

(I know this is an old thread, but i just found it today. Just felt like i had to put it out there)

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

But at the end of the day it's all just a semantic argument, isn't it? The lines have to be drawn up somewhere.

Totally agree. It's true. These are just definitions to describe behaviors. I think part of the problem, or at least my problem with conceptualizing paraphilias vs. sexual orientation, comes from the fact that trans rights activists actually censor language and muddy definitions in order to then push themselves into spaces in an intrusive way. I've become more firm about standing by definitions, and I know a lot of other people on this sub have talked about the need for gatekeeping, as well; it's something worth thinking about, to be sure.

One can be straight and gamp. Or gay and a masochist. Or just a masochist and neither gay/straight/bi/ace. Someone who is only GAMP is not straight nor bi nor ace nor gay. Fetishes can absolutely make discerning sexual orientation interesting.

That is exactly what I believe as well, thank you for clarifying.

Someone with only a paraphilia might be considered to not have a sexual orientation--not the same thing as asexuality--I'll cover the expanse of that phrase in a bit. (I wouldn't consider an exclusive paraphile to be asexual/anerotic, esp wrt attraction to others based on the paraphilia.)

Yup, totally makes sense. I was about to link you an article about asexuality and paraphilias, but I think you've already seen that one if I recall correctly.

I'm inclined to use the definitions of sex research, as there are some fairly well-educated, smart people sitting around thinking about this stuff. It's an appeal to authority. But their definitions have certainly not been adopted by the mainstream, nor do I really expect them to.

That's true. And I realized as I was writing my last reply to strictly, that I have been basing my perspective off of some articles that are rather controversial even among people who work in this field. Opinions are somewhat divided even among researchers (although, there is a lot of division in sex research because of gender ideology).

I also use the definitions of sex research because they are more precise instruments useful for untangling a whole mess of human sexual desire. If a guy tells me he's bi, I'm curious if he's straight & GAMP, just GAMP, or actually bisexual, because those are all very different things.

Exactly. Also, if you have any more suggestions for papers to read on this topic, by the way, I'd love to hear more. This topic has been on my list of things to read about for a while but I just hadn't gotten to it yet.

I'm not certain if he would clarify that to exclude the paraphilias. If this is his standpoint, even Bailey is wise enough to not publically share that opinion with that kind of specificity.

Hah, that's a good point... and I wouldn't be surprised if he is not keen to die on this hill, whatever his views, after all the vitriol he has gotten over other topics.

Making all these terms that describe their essential phenomena fit in a neat fashion with a perfect typology sure is a challenge. Getting people to agree to that typology is a different challenge. But, I'd consider the differing contexts--social movements? or sex research? Etc.

Good point. Maybe strictly and I are just coming at this from different perspectives. And I appreciate your summary/breakdown of the conversation.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

It was a really refreshing conversation to read between you two, both of you clearly have put some thinking and time into the topic. Conversations like these are rare. Gender ideology certainly confounds that sort of discussion, e.g. is a transwoman with a penis a man or a woman? That has to be semantically established before you can start talking about orientation, for sure. Is orientation based on gender, or sex, or both and to what extents? Etc.

Sure, I'll take the article you were thinking about in regards to paraphilias and asexuality. I've probably read it, but I miss stuff occasionally. Many sex researchers, my impression, is that they're still very confused about why some people with paraphilias would have an asexual identity. I've got several things to posit there if you're interested. That'd probably be a new post. I think I understand that conundrum very well.

So as far as GAMP goes, really only one paper. Characterization of GAMP in general. Found links to AGP; GAMP as a preferred stimulus: doi:10.1017/S0033291715002317

Sidebar: It seems to me that GAMP, AGP, and Furry might all be one kind of subjectivity inversion cluster. Characterization of "furry": doi:10.1007/s10508-018-1303-7

I wouldn't dig too far into GAMP without becoming familiar with Paul L. Vasey's work on fa'afafine. I find the cross-cultural perspective to be very useful, and his work gets into GAMP too. There was a really excellent lecture by him on YouTube that I can't find for the life of me now about fa'afafine. The key take-away is that fa'afafine don't have sex with other fa'afafine. That would be the equivalent in the West of gay men not having sex with other gay men. fa'afafine are GNC male androphiles in Samoa who dress and act femme and have sex with "straight" men. Similar to GAMP in the West.

Bailey... I'd have a beer with the guy. Seems like the sort of person you can just talk to without worrying about causing any offense. I'm sure he has even more interesting things to say in private. Here he talks about how his controversies have essentially toughened him up. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346427951_Academic_Freedom_and_Sexual_Hysteria_Three_Controversies

That phrase "sexual orientation," with the general public conjures up all the legal rights-based stuff. If somebody says "Pedophilia is a sexual orientation," even if it makes scientific, typological sense to call it that, the public will loose it. It'd be bonkers.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Is orientation based on gender, or sex, or both and to what extents? Etc.

It is sexual orientation, not genderal orientation. There are "androsexuality" and "feminosexuality" - they are wrongly called "sexualities", as those are more of a hard preferences than homo/hetero sexuality, but people having those are in general just bisexual people, and they like feminine man and feminine women, or masculine man and masculine women.

How I understand paraphilias after reading those articles and adding up my previous experiences, they seems to be very similar to how "sexuality changes" after sex work or sexual abuse, as person lived through that can have sex with any other sex/gender, they will not be aroused from opposite sex, so may need some "preparation", but they still may have good sex and orgasms with opposite to their orientation sex. Out of few paraphilic men I know - they can get off on anything, regardless of their orientation, because in their head they are seeing something different entirely to the reality. Like AGP are being aroused by themselves, so after this they can sleep with anyone else, but real lesbian coerced in sex she do not like - will make their self-arousal even stronger.

Most gay men porn and lesbian women porn is casted with straight or bisexual actors. They are just doing their job and can easily have sex with opposite sex - they are still not attracted or aroused by it, but can have sex and orgasm with no problem. One lesbian porn actress that my (lesbian) friend was checking for some time - get married on a man and said she is straight and went lesbian porn as she not liked how in regular porn women are treated and did not wanted to have injuries too, she was closing her eyes and imagioning she is having sex with a man, or was heating herself up with vibrator to get aroused, or start with strapon, after what just "finishing" on a woman. Because after first arousal, it is biological reflex response. Straight man can orgasm while being raped by a man, but not because he is gay or bisexual - just because it is automatic reflex for rubbing genitals for long time (I believe it is huge problem for many rape victims, as they can't forgive themselves for this).

So I would just say that their paraphilia just overrides their sexuality, as they are having way too heavy delusions or illusions in their head, or they are getting aroused at something else and then just continuing sex with whatever their fetish is. And this thing is not normal and require huge mental stimulus or mental disorders (or long history of abuse) to work.

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I am not denying people can have paraphilias, I'm saying paraphiliac sexual attractions are still sexual attractions.

Yes, they are one type of sexual attraction-- but, according to the research study I cited, and many others about paraphilias, a paraphilia is not a type of sexual orientation nor does a paraphilic sexual attraction determine sexual orientation. (That is how the authors end up describing some of their sample as "pseudobisexual".) To be fair, though, this is a controversial area of research and not all experts agree on these nuances. So if you are not convinced by the study I linked, I understand; I am simply describing these people's work. If you know of any other studies that rebut the points made in the study I cited, or that provide another perspective on the topic, I would be happy to hear about them.

I haven't called you a TRA. But we define exclusive same-sex attraction differnetly, which means we define homsexual differently too.

If you believe paraphilic attraction-- that is, attraction to something that is not human sex-- determines sexual orientation, then I guess we do define it differently. I know you did not call me a TRA, but TRAs believe that one's sexual orientation is not determined by exclusive same-sex attraction, and I'm trying to be clear that I don't condone those views. Discussing paraphilias, or other psychological disorders for that matter, doesn't threaten the existence of sexual orientation.

No disrespect but I think we disagree about most things so we might have to accept that we just disagree.

I know nothing else about what you believe, but sure. Have a nice day.

[–]strictly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

according to the research study I cited

Science is interested in the etiology as they are studying causes, correlations etc but I'm not talking about etiology but sociology here. I can reject that paraphilic attraction to a members of a certain biological sex should count as a completely separate axis to sexual orientation sociologically speaking without rejecting the data from etiological research (the same way I can disagree with researchers who think men should be categorized as women if they are dysphoric without rejecting the data from trans research). With sexual orientations I'm referring to the real life pattern, the sexes of the people the person desires to sexually interact with/is aroused by as that is in my view a more useful sociological categorization.

So if you are not convinced by the study I linked, I understand;

I don't disagree with the data, and the data showed that GAMP men were aroused by these males which is evidence in itself that these men are not exclusively attracted to female people. I also agree that they are not homosexual as they are not exclusively attracted to males either. Pseudo-bisexuality refers to the etiology and I don't disagree with the etiology. But I'm not talking about causes but real life pattern. The GAMP man I know irl, all his partners have been male, calling him as heterosexual because he's GAMP wouldn't reflect reality when he's more attracted to males than females.

attraction to something that is not human sex--

We define attraction differently as you don't count enjoying sex with a penis as an attraction to penis, and you don't count attraction to penis as an attraction to the male sex either because you don't count attraction to the penis as an attraction if you think a paraphilia is involved (it's quite common for GAMP men to prefer non-op male trans people as many are into the penis).

Hypothetically a lot of women on actuallesbians could be preferentially GAMP but only like males who transition. You would in that case discount all their male attractions as not being part of their sexual orientation, right? Then if these women also experience attractions to female people they would be lesbians in your eyes, no? In that case these penis-attracted "lesbians" would have the same right to be part of lesbian groups, and would probably call it discrimination if they can't talk about the genitals/"girldicks" they are into if homosexual women can talk about vaginas. And male trans people would be in the right to pursue "lesbians" as there would be "lesbians" who are sexually into or even prefer male bodies (as long as that male body is on HRT).

TRAs believe that one's sexual orientation is not determined by exclusive same-sex attraction, and I'm trying to be clear that I don't condone those views.

We use the same words but we don't mean the same thing with exclusive same-sex attraction.

In debates with male trans people there is sometimes a type that agrees that a woman is an adult human female, he just happen define himself as female, or he agrees that women are of the female reproductive sex but he happens to consider himself reproductively female. In those cases, when he agrees with the "definitions" the disagreement about definitions is more fundamental.

EDIT: I saw your response to the other poster. Perhaps we do come from different perspectives making me misunderstand what you mean, and in that case I apologize for that. Also, you give the impression you think I disagree with Blanchardianism or see it as controversial, I mostly agree with Blanchardianism and have since years back.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why people so afraid to call someone or to be called as "bisexual"?

[–]reluctant_commenter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Science is interested in the etiology as they are studying causes, correlations etc but I'm not talking about etiology but sociology here.

EDIT: I saw your response to the other poster. Perhaps we do come from different perspectives making me misunderstand what you mean, and in that case I apologize for that. Also, you give the impression you think I disagree with Blanchardianism or see it as controversial, I mostly agree with Blanchardianism and have since years back.

Yup, I think we were kind of talking past each other on accident. :) I do think we agree on the most important points; and yes, I am definitely talking about etiology, not sociology. Sorry I didn't clarify sooner! I did think you were anti-Blanchard, and maybe I missed that you were not; if so, I apologize. I have seen a lot of pushback to his work without discussion of what it is-- certainly among TRAs on many social forms of media, but even on this sub-- so that's why I have had such a heavy emphasis on etiology throughout this discussion. Science is science, regardless of how popular it is. To be perfectly honest, I haven't spent much time thinking about the sociological aspect of how this would all play out in a practical sort of sense, because I've been trying to make sure I understand the facts of the situation.

Now that we are more on the same page-- getting back to what you were talking about...

With sexual orientations I'm referring to the real life pattern, the sexes of the people the person desires to sexually interact with/is aroused by as that is in my view a more useful sociological categorization.

Okay, sure I could see that. (I haven't really thought about it enough to be convinced either way, but now I get where you're coming from.) I am of the opinion that labels ought to be used if they help distinguish nuance; and I could see how in some contexts, especially social ones, it would make sense to just group someone with a paraphilia (where they engage in sexual activity centered around their paraphilia regardless of the sex of their partners) as bisexual. However, might be helpful-- certainly in research, if nothing else-- to distinguish between the etiology of bisexual behaviors, or I suppose you could call it "type" of bisexual (though I'd struggle to support that term), because there are probably meaningful health outcome differences between these groups. I also believe it's important for understanding oneself and one's fellow humans; without recognition of why some people act and feel the way they do, there may be more rejection and ostracization of that group. That's sort of where I'm coming from with this. At the same time, I get why someone would describe your friend with GAMP as bisexual. Maybe this is a good example of why scientific definitions do not always map one-to-one to mainstream definitions.

Hypothetically a lot of women on actuallesbians could be preferentially GAMP but only like males who transition. You would in that case discount all their male attractions as not being part of their sexual orientation, right? Then if these women also experience attractions to female people they would be lesbians in your eyes, no? In that case these penis-attracted "lesbians" would have the same right to be part of lesbian groups, and would probably call it discrimination if they can't talk about the genitals/"girldicks" they are into if homosexual women can talk about vaginas. And male trans people would be in the right to pursue "lesbians" as there would be "lesbians" who are sexually into or even prefer male bodies (as long as that male body is on HRT).

Okay-- you can probably already imagine what I would say to this, in context of our different perspectives, but you raise an interesting question so I'll answer it anyway. (And, even if we disagree, I respect that you are arguing in good faith.)

Hypothetically a lot of women on actuallesbians could be preferentially GAMP but only like males who transition

Yup, or at least some number of them.

You would in that case discount all their male attractions as not being part of their sexual orientation, right?

I'm going to quote GatitoMalo here, because I think their wording is helpful to clarify my answer:

One can be straight and gamp. Or gay and a masochist. Or just a masochist and neither gay/straight/bi/ace. Someone who is only GAMP is not straight nor bi nor ace nor gay. Fetishes can absolutely make discerning sexual orientation interesting

In this question, it sounds like you are talking about a woman who is attracted to women, and has a GAMP paraphilia, and is not attracted to men (otherwise). In which case, if she has no attraction to men outside the context of GAMP, then yes, from an "etiological perspective" she is lesbian according to sex research-- because if it weren't for the psychological disorder she has, she wouldn't be engaging in sexual activity with men. I think that in most practical contexts, people would call this woman bisexual; however, if we're starting with the definitions used in research, she'd be lesbian. I know this is an unpopular view, and I don't envy the position of Bailey or Blanchard or anyone else who does this stuff for a living, lol. But, as far as I am aware and according to studies that have been done so far, this is reflective of reality. (But again, I would be happy to read evidence to the contrary!)

In debates with male trans people there is sometimes a type that agrees that a woman is an adult human female, he just happen define himself as female, or he agrees that women are of the female reproductive sex but he happens to consider himself reproductively female. In those cases, when he agrees with the "definitions" the disagreement about definitions is more fundamental.

Yup, I've seen that, and I see why you mention that; when you say "bisexual" in the "sociological" sense, it does mean something different than when I say "bisexual" in the "etiological" sense. I'll acknowledge that difference readily. After talking with you, I'm leaning towards the idea that there is room for both definitions. That sounds like a mess, but to be honest, with the presence of these two etiologies it kind of IS a mess. Let me confess: if I knew a woman in real life who dated both women and men, I would probably just say she was bisexual-- even if I knew, for example, that she was purely sadomasochistic and was not otherwise attracted to either gender. Casual conversations don't necessarily need the level of nuance that I have been arguing for; but neither would I erase that nuance, if that is the most accurate depiction of reality.

edit: Also, thank you for engaging with me on this topic! I appreciate it. It's interesting stuff.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I did think you were anti-Blanchard

If you knew the irony. That theory is something I know a lot about.

Science is science, regardless of how popular it is.

You seem like you trust scientists a lot so I think I'm more cynical than you. It's true science is science but scientists are fallible humans with biases like the rest of us. Social sciences (which sexology is part of) are one the branches most affected by the replication crisis. Sexology research is not that advanced either, there is much we don't know. I say this despite being someone who enjoys reading sexology studies, or maybe because of it.

I am of the opinion that labels ought to be used if they help distinguish nuance; and I could see how in some contexts, especially social ones, it would make sense to just group someone with a paraphilia

You think labels ought to be used if they help distinguish nuance and I agree that being more specific is good. Sexually desiring sexual encounters with the opposite sex and wanting an exactly zero amount of such encounters is a far lager difference than a nuance though, they are opposites. Therefore I am strongly against grouping homosexuals with people who desire sex with the opposite sex.

might be helpful-- certainly in research, if nothing else-- to distinguish between the etiology of bisexual behaviors

I agree.

I also believe it's important for understanding oneself and one's fellow humans; without recognition of why some people act and feel the way they do, there may be more rejection and ostracization of that group.

We can recognize that people who sexually desire sex with the opposite sex are by definition not exclusively same-sex attracted without ostracizing them. People who sexually desire sex with the opposite sex would also face less push-back from homosexuals in the first place if they didn't mislabel themselves as homosexual (something that negatively affects homosexuals as it redefines homosexuals to group that is interested in having sex with the opposite sex).

One can be straight and gamp

It would be possible for a woman, not for a man. GAMP by definition includes attraction to a subgroup of males, and a man attracted to males is by definition not straight. It's the same way a person can't be both a vegetarian and a meateater (doesn't matter if the meateater binges on meat due to an eating disorder). A person can however be someone who eats both vegetables and meat as neither excludes the other. So if you want to center the GAMP man's non-paraphilic attraction to women you can call him something that doesn't in itself exclude attraction to males. He can't be both straight and GAMP but he can both gynephilic and GAMP, as attraction to women doesn't exclude attraction to males.

if it weren't for the psychological disorder she has, she wouldn't be engaging in sexual activity with men

In the past homosexuality was considered a disorder. Someone who sees homosexuality as a disorder could say about a homosexual woman "if it weren't for the psychological disorder she has she wouldn't be engaging in sexual activity with women therefor she's asexual". Scientists are divided on what should be considered a psychological disorder, some think that something can be only be considered a psychological disorder if that something causes the person or the people around harm. There could be GAMP women who don't feel troubled by it, some might like being GAMP.

if we're starting with the definitions used in research, she'd be lesbian. I know this is an unpopular view, and I don't envy the position of Bailey or Blanchard or anyone else who does this stuff for a living, lol. But, as far as I am aware and according to studies that have been done so far, this is reflective of reality.

For my part I do disagree with researchers' naming decisions but I understand the need for terminology so I am somewhat forgiving when they borrow terminology and use them to talk about causes in research context. I still see it as problematic, as it leads to conflation, so ideally they should use words as gynephilic/androphilic instead (which they sometimes do) as it's inaccurate to call people into both sexes words defined by exclusive attraction to only one sex.

(But again, I would be happy to read evidence to the contrary!)

Even if I had known a study saying the word homosexual should be defined as a person who is exclusively same-sex attracted I wouldn't link it as in my opinion it's not really up to science to decide whether homosexuals deserve a distinguishing word for our sexual orientation (which we don't have if we are grouped with people who sexually orient toward the opposite sex for sex). It's similar to how I don't see it as a scientific question who should win a political election. It's outside their scope.