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 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.

[–]reluctant_commenter 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

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

I will have to take your word for it, regarding your familiarity with it. I am always pleasantly surprised by how many thoughtful perspectives I hear on this sub. We have a couple lawyers floating around here, as well... All I'll say is, perhaps we have more in common than you might have assumed in your previous comment. Maybe you're an expert, but I have no way of knowing; and anyway, credentials are really no substitution for an honest conversation about the topic, when it comes to changing someone's mind. Unless you're secretly Blanchard himself come to bash me for misreading his work, lol.

You seem like you trust scientists a lot so I think I'm more cynical than you.

I trust the process of science a lot. Scientists as people, overall, I am fairly skeptical of. I do respect sex researchers for the fact that they are willing at at least have a conversation about these topics. But my trust is more for this article. If you are thinking of some mistakes that were in this study, or another study you're thinking of that might make me trust this research less, feel free to point them out.

It seems we still disagree on our definitions. I kind of doubt we'll be able to change each other's minds. However, in case it would help you understand why you haven't convinced me, I'd like to describe what concerns me about your definitions.

If we go with your definitions, we would be including some people who have paraphilic sexual attraction to one of the sexes, but not non-paraphilic sexual attraction to that sex, in the now-umbrella label "bisexual". Right? (For example, a man attracted to women and who also is GAMP but is not attracted to men in general; however, if he wants to engage in sexual activity that involves his paraphilia, with other people, then he may likely end up having sex/relationships with men.)

Here is what I am seeing:

  • Paraphilias are, to some significant degree, learned or formed by experience.
  • If that man with GAMP (or other examples like him) is "bisexual", then that means that some people are only bisexual because of a fetish.
  • Then, it would be accurate to say that, "for at least some bisexuals-- like this man-- their sexual orientation is a paraphilia."
  • Furthermore, if (for at least some people), sexual orientation is a paraphilia, then sexual orientation can 1. be learned, 2. be changed

I think a lot of people would object to the idea that sexual orientation is learned or can be changed. That idea has been a cornerstone of arguments that support conversion therapy.

From a different angle: Let's say my goal is to distinguish between the following groups. - people who only have non-paraphilic sexual attraction, for both men and women - people who only have paraphilic sexual attraction, and the people they engage in paraphilia-related sexual activity with are men and women - people who have non-paraphilic sexual attraction for women, and a paraphilic interest that causes them to end up in relationships with men

What's a good system of labels to quickly differentiate between these groups? (It's certainly worth differentiating between these groups.) In my view, the system of "non-paraphilic sexual orientation, or lack thereof and paraphilic sexual attraction, or lack thereof" works well-- for example, "straight and GAMP" or "gay and a masochist" or whatever.

I think it's safe to say that regardless of whatever labels one uses for specific groups of people, there are meaningful differences between non-paraphilic sexual attraction, and paraphilic sexual attraction. I just want to know what labels I should be using to quickly differentiate between these groups. Because of those meaningful differences (and I responded this to MezozoicGay, as well): I think it's important to distinguish between "paraphilia" and "sexual orientation" (that is, one's set of non-paraphilic sexual preferences) as concepts, and not simply brush paraphilic sexual attraction under the term of sexual orientation. Not just in research. (And again, I do agree, in some contexts it DOES make sense to just lump everybody in together, for example, when we are fighting against the persecution of same-sex relationships.)

edit: mistyped a sentence fragment

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

Paraphilias are, to some significant degree, learned or formed by experience.

I don't think anybody disagrees with this.

If that man with GAMP (or other examples like him) is "bisexual", then that means that some people are only bisexual because of a fetish.

Follows.

Then, it would be accurate to say that, "for at least some bisexuals-- like this man-- their sexual orientation is a paraphilia."

I don't like the exact example, but yes. I could substitute one, I won't.

Furthermore, if (for at least some people), sexual orientation is a paraphilia, then sexual orientation can 1. be learned, 2. be changed

So here's the issue I take. Getting into more theoretical ground here. The way a person is paraphilic is learned. What their paraphilic sexual interests end up being. The fact that they are paraphilic is likely not learned. (I also assume that there are different etiologies for paraphilias, and as such, there could be more learning with one group, and less learning with another. Things that are variations of normal sexual practices are potentially least learned, for instance.)

I made this argument in a reply not in this particular part of the thread tree:

Latex fetishism. Latex is a new invention. There is no gene specifically for latex fetishism. Evolutionary biology does not work that quickly. A sexual interest in latex would experience a selective pressure out of the human genome because it would compete with a procreative interest.

So in the case of this fetish, I posit that it is 100% learned, and if it wasn't latex, a person would, likely, find something else. Learning and conditioning are two different things. Some people really like latex.

On the idea of change. Again, can't unparaphile the paraphile, but can you modify their interests from thing A to thing B? Or is it that once a person is into thing "A," that it's locked in and immutable. Tough question. Nobody knows. Even farther out on the theoretical limb now. If you look at paraphilic people, say sadomasochists, it's important to recognize that someone who prefers to swing a paddle but then decides later that they like wielding whips instead--that's not a change of interest. BDSM pratitioners often change their roles over time. A top may later on prefer to bottom only, so on and so forth. That would change them from "sadist" to "masochist" per the DSM. Is that a change? I'm disinclined to say so, the sexual interest is still in pain, power, and humiliation. How that manifests...

I'll stop there, otherwise I'd ramble on. Have I ever seen what I would consider to be a meaningful shift? No. Not an addition, subtraction nor modification. I'm immensely curious if it can happen though. Hitting some serious ethical issues there though, to investigate that. Conversion therapy and all that. I've not observed it organically. I could experiment on myself though... hm. Anyhow, I'm inclined to say that once the paraphilic inclination starts to manifest, it's locked in.

[–]strictly 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

credentials are really no substitution for an honest conversation about the topic

I haven't claimed to have credentials or suggested credentials are a substitution for honest conversation.

If you are thinking of some mistakes that were in this study, or another study you're thinking of that might make me trust this research less, feel free to point them out.

I agree with the research so I have no reason to make you distrust it and I respect Bailey's and Blanchard's work, I just don't see them as guides on how language should be used. Regarding mistakes, yeah, they make make mistakes like everyone else. I could make a list of things i don't strictly agree with them on scientifically but it wouldn't be very relevant to our conversation unless you want to go down that rabbit hole.

If that man with GAMP (or other examples like him) is "bisexual", then that means that some people are only bisexual because of a fetish.

Yeah, the same with homosexual, if there was a woman who was only attracted to women like Buck Angel and other female transitioners, but never attracted to anyone else, then yes, I would consider that woman homosexual as she is exclusively attracted to female people.

Furthermore, if (for at least some people), sexual orientation is a paraphilia, then sexual orientation can 1. be learned, 2. be changed

You seem to think saying someone who has paraphilic attraction to men is attracted to men is trivializing attraction to men which I in turn think trivializes the attractions of paraphilic people. You say a paraphilia can run counter to a person's normophilic attractions, that would necessitate that the paraphila in question must be powerful enough that it can turn what would have been an aversion into an attraction. I think a paraphilia that powerful can't be dismissed as not counting. You also seem to think paraphilias by definition can be learned and changed. Many paraphiles do seem to have been born predisposed that way. And as you respect Bailey here is his reply to Grey who made an argument that furryness was a conditioned fetish. I also haven't heard of science proving that strong prapahilias can be unlearned.

I think a lot of people would object to the idea that sexual orientation is learned or can be changed.

Yes, I would object to that, but I also object to saying that as a rule about paraphilias. You also seem to talk as if paraphiles would always be incapable of being into the people they like having sex with. You think it's impossible for a GAMP man to be truly attracted to a male trans person? If the GAMP man likes engaging with the dick of his male partner and says he loves him, is that less real than if straight woman likes engaging with dick and says she loves her male partner? Is the attraction/love so different that the former can't be considered part of an orientation at all in your eyes?

I just want to know what labels I should be using to quickly differentiate between these groups.

If you want labels for differentiating the groups then you should create labels for that. As I have said before, I'm not against the creation of terminology, I am against redefining homosexuality for that purpose.

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

I haven't claimed to have credentials or suggested credentials are a substitution for honest conversation.

I know; I was just making an observation. This was not intended as a personal attack; in fact, I have already mentioned a couple of times that I appreciate that we've had this discussion, and I still do.

You also seem to think paraphilias by definition can be learned and changed.

Yes, and specifically, to some degree is what I said. Maybe not all types of paraphilias; and to be honest, I haven't seen convincing evidence that someone could change so that they no longer have a paraphilia, either. However, I struggle to believe that someone could be born a furry, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if there were some genetic expression that could predispose someone to developing a paraphilia. (The article you linked brings this up, as well.) But if paraphilias could NOT be learned or conditioned at all, then they would be innate. And I struggle to believe that paraphilias are innate. We see evidence of same-sex attraction in many other species, but I am not aware of there being any paraphilias among non-human animals; are you? That's a pretty fundamental difference between non-paraphilic attraction and paraphilic attraction.

You seem to think saying someone who has paraphilic attraction to men is attracted to men is trivializing attraction to men

No, I don't think that either one is somehow worth less than the other. I am simply saying that they are different things, people likely arrive at them by different etiological pathways, and there may be interesting health implications for people who have one vs. the other vs. both vs. none, so why not talk about them?

I think a paraphilia that powerful can't be dismissed as not counting.

Not counting... as what? It doesn't count as non-paraphilic sexual attraction (i.e. what I am calling sexual orientation), because by definition, it is paraphilic... That does not mean it is trivial, though. I'm not saying paraphilic attraction is weaker than non-paraphilic attraction, I'm just saying that they are different, and that because they are different, we ought to be able to distinguish them in communication by using labels. And when most people say "sexual orientation" they mean attraction to human sex (male or female), not to an idea. And paraphilias involve sexual arousal caused by an idea. In the case of sadism, the idea is inflicting pain; in the case case of AGP, it's the idea of being a woman; in the idea of GAMP, it's the idea of gynandromorphism, and Hsu et al. (2015) also found that "GAMP men are especially likely to eroticize the idea of being a woman".

And as you respect Bailey

Lol. I respect him as much as any other scientist. I can't say I agree with him on everything. For example, the majority of this discussion centers around data collected on male subjects, and I hesitate to generalize findings from studies only involving men to women. And, as you implied, this article takes a heavier stance against the idea that paraphilias are learned. However, they write:

First, we are in the early stages of research on phenomena that might be ETIIs, and it is useful to explore and debate alternative hypotheses. Second, we are not sure that the two hypotheses—ETIIs and conditioned fetishes—are incompatible with one another. There may be a role for conditioning in ETIIs, although we suspect it is a minor one.

And I suspect that they might think it's a minor one in part because there are relatively few studies involving women. They observe elsewhere:

"We are, however, impressed by the rigidity of male sexual interests despite extreme externally imposed identity change."

However, I think it'll take time and more studies to parse out what is really going on there. And while interesting, this has strayed somewhat from our disagreement about labels.

I think this'll be my last response. This has been a fascinating conversation, but again, I don't think either of us is likely to change our views at this point in time. Thanks and have a nice day.

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

We see evidence of same-sex attraction in many other species, but I am not aware of there being any paraphilias among non-human animals; are you?

Yes as we count attraction to other species as paraphilic. There have been dogs that have raped human babies, an orangutan that raped a researcher, dolphins that have been sexually aggressive with human divers so to me it seems non-hum animals can be paraphilic too.

people likely arrive at them by different etiological pathways

Yes, but we don't know the specific etiological pathways of specific people so I don't regard that as a useful way to categorize sexual orientation. There are also political lesbians who think they should be count as lesbians as they view their attraction to men as unhealthy, I would not put it past some to call their attraction to men paraphilic simply because they don't like being heterosexual/bisexual. Two people with the same sexual orientation might not have the same etiological pathway either even among non-paraphilic people.

so why not talk about them?

I am not against having terminology in general to talk about it, I am just against words for other distinctions being used for that. I.e I think it's useful for homosexual to have a word which distinguish homosexuals from those who sexually desire sex with opposite sex as we have different interests and needs. Other words can be created for other types of distinctions.

Not counting... as what?

As attraction to men like in your initial example of a woman who enjoys sex with penis due to a paraphilia. I don't know why it would be considered paraphilic of a woman to enjoy to sex with a penis, but if it ought to be considered paraphilic in some way I still don't see why that would make her attraction to men as something that shouldn't count as an attraction to men.

not to an idea

I disagree with the view that GAMP people are only attracted to ideas and not real males who are trans. Otherwise one could say similar about homosexuals, that homosexuals are only attracted to the idea of same-sex relationships, not real members of the same sex.

"GAMP men are especially likely to eroticize the idea of being a woman"

About half of them are also AGP but the other half is not.

I can't say I agree with him on everything.

Glad to hear that.

Thanks and have a nice day.

Have a nice day you too.

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

Two people with the same sexual orientation might not have the same etiological pathway either even among non-paraphilic people.

This is my understanding of male homosexuality.

There are also political lesbians who think they should be count as lesbians as they view their attraction to men as unhealthy,

I wouldn't call their sexual orientation to be lesbian, even if that's the practice. It's politics. Gee. Now we've got three things. Sexual orientation, paraphilias, and politics.

I've enjoyed these conversations immensely, but I don't think we're going to come up with a typology that can cover all this stuff, and the two or three of us all agree to it. Maybe if we were in person and getting paid for this sort of thing.

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

This is my understanding of male homosexuality.

Yes, it seems there could be more just one etiological pathway to male homosexuality, and also indications that these etiological pathways might correlate with different things.

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

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"

Okay, this is a brilliant counterexample.

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.

We could also define bisexuality as not being a unique sexuality in and of itself, but a bisexual person is both heterosexual and homosexual. For example.

I wouldn't define heterosexuality as necessitating excluding any other sexual interests. It is merely a normal sexual interest in the opposite sex. I doubt if I look up any "formal" definitions of the word that I'll find an exclusion clause.

It's the same way a person can't be both a vegetarian and a meateater

I agree here, but it's how all those individual words are defined.

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.

I'm debating with you, but believe me, your arguments are very compelling.

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

We could also define bisexuality as not being a unique sexuality in and of itself, but a bisexual person is both heterosexual and homosexual. For example.

Homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexual all have different needs, not just because of being into the the same or opposite sex but also because of the exclusivity or non-exclusivity of that. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are monosexual which bisexuals are not. We have other words for when only homosexual attractions without regard for the exclusivity/non-exclusivity of these attractions are interesting like wlw (women loving women), mlm (men loving men). We still have homosexual groups because homosexuals want talk to and organize with other homosexuals without bisexuals too, as the monosexuality of the homosexuality is a unique experience in itself (and bisexuals probabaly find their non-exclusivity an unique experience).

but it's how all those individual words are defined

Likewise homosexuality and hetersexuality are defined by the exclusivity of the attractions to the same/opposite sex.

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

Welp. It's been fun, but I think I'm just going to leave this thread now. Probably come back and re-read it in a few months, just as a review. Some very interesting ideas brought up and discussed, thank you for your intelligent discussion.