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 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.