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 →

[–][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)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't mind diving into an old thread. I like discussing things. I linked this thread today, it's perfectly reasonable to revisit it on account of that. Get a new take on it and all that.

It was never supposed to "contain all of someone's sexual makeup" in one word.

I agree with you. When "homosexuality" was coined, I doubt there was readily an understanding of GAMP, however. The landscape has changed significantly because of all the sexual diversity we now find ourselves in, or find ourselves aware of. That's a problem I'd like to address. When I say things such as "I want..." that is an example of that. But what I want in this regard isn't to change anyone's behavior or modify society in some way beyond having a sensible taxonomy for human sexuality.

People are so tied to these labels, they've built identities around them. When I question the labels, I'm somehow inadvertently asking people for more than that. Can't avoid it.

Common to the theme of DropTheT, I don't think one can readily deal with the specific aetiologies of transsexualism, as a social movement tacked on to LGB, without first understanding them.

Once we have an understanding of what we're dealing with, then, we can decide what to do about it.

"Homosexuality" was a necessary term that was lacking to combat homophobic/bioessentialists/overall just wrong beliefs about sexuality

Certainly we're not talking any more about the inception of the word, in what was it 1869? Roughly about there. Do you mean homosexuality as identity for the purpose of identity politics?

Very glaringly non-female characteristics wouldn't you say.

What I'm pointing out is that GAMP is different. GAMP isn't like heterosexuality, nor is it like homosexuality either. There are some GAMP who only want GAM. Exclusively. It's unique. If you only look at gametes, you'll miss that nuance.

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.

Okay, so you're coming at this from the social movement perspective. I'm not disagreeing. I think I've demonstrably come to the defense of GAMP here on DropTheT, as a sexuality that should be accepted, to no personal benefit of my own. (It's not, with some exceptions, the sexualities people have that I find problematic. It's the social change and especially the methods they are using to affect the change that I find to be problematic.)

The question from an LGB perspective, again, to the purpose of this /s/LGBDropTheT, is do you want to take on GAMP as part of LGB? Or, would that be better served as a different social movement, albeit, with very similar goals.

GAMP demonstrate some link with AGP. Most GAM are AGP. Society at large will probably regard GAMP as a "weird fetish" for quite some time. The lid is going to blow on the tautology that transwomen are women, eventually. I hope I'm wrong, but I think it's going to be ugly.

Should we conscript fairly regular bisexual and homosexual people for the purpose of normalizing GAMP? Is that fair? Should fetishism, as most people understand it, be added to the initialism? Where else are you going to have these sorts of conversations? Who gets to decide?

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

But what I want in this regard isn't to change anyone's behavior or modify society in some way beyond having a sensible taxonomy for human sexuality.

This is why the hetero/homo/bi tri(?)chotomy seems to work just fine. Regarding sexuality, there are many questions that one can ask; a perfectly valid one is "ok, so which sex do you want to do it with?". It's not that you can't ask other questions. Of course that is relevant as well, but it would need to be created other terms for those.

There are some GAMP who only want GAM. Exclusively. It's unique. If you only look at gametes, you'll miss that nuance.

Like I said, it's fine to ask other questions. But there are a myriad of other different body types as well and people have been doing just fine reconciling the various labels. There are bi men only attracted to big hairy bears, and there are bi men only attracted to hairless, twinky gays. Their interests don't intersect at all, but they seem to be fine under the same bi label.

I'm not saying that bisexual people should just be tossed all together in a room and learn to get along with each other, i understand the need for different denominations/labels/identities/whatever. But from your question

Should we conscript fairly regular bisexual and homosexual people for the purpose of normalizing GAMP? Is that fair? Should fetishism, as most people understand it, be added to the initialism?

it seems like it would be an insult to the "normal" ones that the fetishists belong to the same category as them, in this one axis. Like that would lead to people thinking bisexuality is also just another form of fetishism? What are you worried about here? In gay culture, there are so many fetish subcultures, some really nasty ones even, but i've never seen any gay man suggest they shouldn't call themselves gay. I guess because most people already seem to understand that homosexuality and fetishism are not the same thing, so they don't conflate the two, and both the "normal" and the fetishists get to do their own thing in peace.

do you want to take on GAMP as part of LGB? Or, would that be better served as a different social movement, albeit, with very similar goals.

They are bisexual, so they belong in the LGB (descriptive category) regardless. The LGB (as a social movement), in my view, intended to simply say "Hey, you all seem to think that the P should only go in the V and that is the end of that, because babies or whatever. This is not the only motivation for human sexuality. Same sex attraction occurs too and it occurs naturally". Period. The "let's divide everyone into various microlabels and identities because god forbid everyone doesn't get the sense that they are the most unique and different and special" is more something of the "Queer community", which we criticize here. Actually, i wouldn't think they were so bad because, and you seem to agree, there should be more awareness and acceptance of people that are different sexually and what not. It's the way they've climbed on the backs of gay and bisexual people and have been hurting on us since.

But why would fetishists need their own social movement? And if they did, don't straight people have fetishes too? If it's about ending discrimination for people with fetishes, so be it. No need to involve the "which sex" question in this case, it would be more of the "how". Why would there need to be a focus on the persons sexual orientation?

The lid is going to blow on the tautology that transwomen are women, eventually. I hope I'm wrong, but I think it's going to be ugly.

I don't understand what you mean here.

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

The lid is going to blow on the tautology that transwomen are women, eventually. I hope I'm wrong, but I think it's going to be ugly.

I don't understand what you mean here.

https://www.glaad.org/sites/default/files/Accelerating%20Acceptance%202019.pdf

LGBTQ+ acceptance is going down in the United States.

% of Non-LGBTQ 18-34 year olds who are allies:

2016: 63%

2017: 53%

2018: 45%

If I extrapolate that to 2020, it's 27%, and 2021 it will be 18%. Does that strike you as a problem?

Trans, being lumped in with LGB, is very likely what's driving that. Some people understand that LGB and T are two different things, but not everyone.

But why would fetishists need their own social movement?

See above.

And if they did, don't straight people have fetishes too? If it's about ending discrimination for people with fetishes, so be it. No need to involve the "which sex" question in this case, it would be more of the "how". Why would there need to be a focus on the persons sexual orientation?

Anyone can have a fetish, but when we're talking about a really compelling fetish, not the pink fuzzy handcuffs from the corner porn store, it is the fetish that can cause people to cross the heterosexual boundary. The fetish is the sexual interest, not the sex of the other person.

Fetishism absolutely overlaps LGBT, but I don't want to conflate the two as being the same rights movement. (This is also the majority opinion of LGB folks--"K"ink or "F"etish isn't part of the initialism.) In the pansexual BDSM community for instance, non-heterosexual is the dominant "sexual orientation." They're not fetishists on account of being not straight, they're not straight on account of being fetishists.

I am all for individual rights, let's be abundantly clear on that. But co-opting one group's social progress and standing for another's goal, while dragging that original group back down, isn't nice.

[–]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.

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

It is sexual orientation, not genderal orientation.

I was pointing out some semantic problems arguing between let's say, the traditional view of these subjects vs the new gender ideologues.

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.

Absolutely. In the case of AGP, that you brought up, the men often have to result to herculean amounts of mental work and fantasy to have sex. It depends on the nature of the AGP for that individual. Some of them manifest more anatomically (that they have a vagina, for instance,) others are more interested in the transvestism. The latter of which can be more readily brought into the bedroom, assuming the partner is okay with it.

Depending on the individual, they may only have a minor interest in their paraphilia, such that's optional. It might be preferred, or exclusive.

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.

It's not dissimilar to heterosexual men in men's prisons who are having sex with other men, but fantasizing about women. It does not require a paraphilia to pull it off. Also your points about pornography, I agree. The actors may not personally be interested in that sex, but they can do it.

it is biological reflex response.

Yes. It's a two way street. It can start in the mind, or in the pants.

And this thing is not normal

Of course paraphilias are not normal. They're relatively uncommon. They're non-procreative, for instance (the same can be said about same-sex sex, by the way.) Some are morally and legally objectionable.

and require huge mental stimulus

Sometimes, see above.

or mental disorders (or long history of abuse) to work.

It's a pretty complicated question whether having a paraphilia per se qualifies as a mental disorder. That's a pretty lengthy discussion. People can absolutely become disordered on account of their paraphilia, but it's not a guarantee. Depends on the paraphilia. The societal stigmatization of the sexual interest can sometimes be the cause of the disorder. (See the medical history of homosexuality in the West.)

Abuse... there's no strong evidence that childhood sexual abuse, adverse childhood experiences, or other sexual traumas are causative for the common paraphilias, in the majority of cases. I have seen some forms of repetition compulsion, but it seems rare. I can link papers specifically for BDSM practitioners that I have handy if you're interested. At least, I can always readily produce a wide variety of paraphilic persons who report no traumas.

[–]reluctant_commenter 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Totally agree with everything you've said. Especially 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.

That is my understanding of all this, as well. I think it's important to distinguish between "paraphilia" and "sexual orientation" as concepts, and not simply include paraphilic sexual attraction under the umbrella of sexual orientation. That was my beef with strictly's points; but, I am now realizing that they were actually talking about more practical/casual use of language about sexual orientation.

To be honest-- I kind of wish we lived in a world where we could just call a spade a spade and have it not be seen as shameful for someone to say, "Hey, I have X paraphilia and Y sexual orientation." Of course, you could then get a bunch of people making up shit and accidentally mistaking what they are; could see people with internalized homophobia pretending to have a paraphilia in order to deny their same-sex attraction, as just one example... if only the world weren't so complicated. Lol.

Thanks for pitching in on this subject!

edit: Just to add-- I recognize that many people live with their paraphilias and I don't want to shame people for that fact. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve wording on this front, I'd be happy to hear it.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Saying that "homosexuality is sexual preference" is basically making homosexuality a paraphilia. So it is important to fight against this.

[–]reluctant_commenter 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Exactly.

edit: This is part of my problem with lumping in people with paraphilias with bisexuals by default... it obscures the facts that there are actual bisexuals who do NOT have paraphilias. Seems like breeding grounds for misunderstanding and biphobia.

It stands to reason that one could be gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and be able to have this type of psychological disorder. We can't get rid of the problem by just shoving everyone with this type of disorder under the bisexual label.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Paraphilias are not volitional, in the same way that heterosexuality isn't volitional.

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

It is something that is appearing during life and something that sometimes can be removed or strongly reduced. Not as much with heterosexuality or homosexuality. You are not developing heterosexuality at age of 30, and it is not going away after treatment and self control.