I have a hard time believing that men who are attracted to transwomen wouldn't also be attracted to hyperfeminine (non-trans) men

submitted by dilsencySame-sex community from self.LGBDropTheT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Commenting on the post and a few comments.

Gyneandromorphophilia is a paraphilia, that describes a sexual interest in gyneandromorphs. GAMP and GAM, respectively. Gyneandromorphs are people who's primary sexual characteristics are male--penis, scrotum, testicles; who's secondary sexual characteristics are female--breasts, feminine face; they typically have a feminine gender presentation. Transwomen are the most common kind of GAM.

Men who are GAMP, also called "chasers," are typically into both phenotypically normal women and GAMs. Sometimes their interest in GAMs is exclusive or greater than their interest normal women. This is why it's probably not an attraction to gradations of femininity, and is a paraphilia. GAMPs are very interested in the penis. They are not at all interested in phenotypically normal men. Thus, they are not classified in sex research as bisexual, nor homosexual. There is one study, that I know of, that demonstrated that some GAMP men score also score fairly high for autogynephilia themselves. Paraphilias tend to cluster.

As to the how or why of GAMP, as is the case of most of the paraphilias, we don't know. It's not latent or suppressed homosexuality. It's an atypical interest, and trying to fit it into the box of "normal" interests (het/homo/bi) isn't going to do it justice.

Now, can you get a man who isn't paraphilic and is attracted to trans women? Of course. If a straight man perceives a natal male as a woman, then an interest can form. The question is whether the interest remains after the transwoman has been "clocked" and is understood to be a man, instead.

Some straight men do engage with GAMs because they're looking for a(ny) sexual partner, enjoy the prowess of the GAM (probably on account of a similar set of anatomy,) but do their darnedest to ignore the fact that the GAM has a penis and to pretend the GAM is a woman woman. These men are not GAMP, they're horny. GAMP men often have a bisexual identity and are interested in the peins--this is how you can tell the two groups apart.

/u/_Moon_ mentioned "pornsickness":

So what role does pornography play in GAMP? There is absolutely learning involved in some of the paraphilias. In a world without latex, do you think there would be any latex fetishists? Certainly not. But that is not to say that once something is learned, that it can be unlearned, especially if what has been learned is compelling. It won't soon be forgotten. Or that the learning was necessarily volitional. Or that the learning took place during a morally turbid episode. Additionally, why do only some men, all of them otherwise perfectly normal, when exposed to GAM stimuli develop an interest in it? We don't know. My educated guess is there's something biologically essential about these particular men, probably something set in place during neonatal development.

[–]OPPRESSED_REPTILIANIntersex male | GNC | Don't call me "a gay", "twink" or "queen" 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I hate being called a "gynoandromorph." It has heavy implications to trans & fetishism, neither of which apply to me. I'm an intersex guy. My "female-like" appearance didn't manifest because I fetishistically willed it into existence, I was born like that, and to be blunt reading all thee "gender critical"/radfem posts about how us "GAMs" are basically just objects of fetish consumption and/or creepy fetishists ourselves is pretty sickening.

If you mean trans say trans, because I can guarantee that males who naturally have feminine secondary sex characteristics don't act like MTFs in any way.

Thus, they are not classified in sex research as bisexual, nor homosexual.

This is horseshit. I am not attracted to "phenotypically normal men" but that doesn't mean I'm not homosexual. If you said the same for lesbians, that women who are not attracted to "phenotypically normal women" and were only interested in butches, nobody would be defending that as a "paraphilia" and I'm sure the entire gender critical movement would be screeching over "lesbophobia" about that. So why is it different for males? Why is my sexuality suddenly null because I'm not attracted to traditionally masculine men? How does that even make sense when usually, this sub is very much against anything but very clear cut lesbian/gay/bisexual/straight sexuality definers, and that anything else is made up nonsense?

Are the gay men who come for me, who are masculine men with an interest in feminine men, not really gay? Are women who are interested in androgynous/feminine men too, also not straight?

Make no mistake, I'm not defending trans or "femboy" fetishists, because I've been harassed by them and I know how scummy they are. They don't see us as human, they don't respect our feelings, we're just a niche kink to them to use for their entertainment and move on.

But saying that they're not homosexual or bisexual, or worse yet saying that everyone who isn't into masculine men is a "GAMP" or fetishist that can't be gay/bi, is not only pretty shitty but also heinously incorrect.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I hate being called a "gynoandromorph." It has heavy implications to trans & fetishism, neither of which apply to me.

That's fair. I mildly dislike the term "homosexual," for instance, due to it's medical history. It also mixes greek and latin roots. I still use it though, because it's the best we got. In another thread today, somebody posted GLAAD's guidelines that says that "homosexual" is now a no-no word. I'm not keen on chasing the next woke term. Eventually just have to bite the bullet and settle.

I don't at all mind you calling yourself intersex, it's accurate, and you offered this up, but if I'm classifying sexual interests in a scientific way, gyneandromorph is an accurate, precise, meaningful way to describe object-choice. Intersex is all sorts of different things. To have any discourse, we need to be on the same page.

My "female-like" appearance didn't manifest because I fetishistically willed it into existence, I was born like that.

Of course. GAMPs were born like that, is also my argument.

If you mean trans say trans

No, I don't always mean trans. Trans is the most common GAM, but is not the only. Intersex is another.

I can guarantee that males who naturally have feminine secondary sex characteristics don't act like MTFs in any way.

You're incorrectly thinking that I was conflating transsexualism and intersex. Most of your objection seems to be based on this.

and to be blunt reading all thee "gender critical"/radfem posts about how us "GAMs" are basically just objects of fetish consumption and/or creepy fetishists ourselves is pretty sickening.

That depends if you consider GAMP to be inherently creepy fetishism. I don't. I indicated that I expected they were more or less born that way to it and came about it sans any moral failing. See the giant parallel? (I'll be swinging from the gallows in no time.) Any sexuality can become "creepy," even plain old heterosexuality. Just because a sexuality is uncommon does not inherently make it bad. It depends on the nature of the interest. Also, men tend to objectify everybody, sexually speaking. Strip clubs are a thing, for instance. If heterosexual men who are also GAMP can be accused of objectifying GAMs any more than normal women, it's probably due to shame and guilt. Society expects them to partner with regular women, not GAMs, and make babies, so sex with GAMs is something they do on the side, because it is society at large that sees the GAM interest as being purely fetishistic and not procreative--the "right way" to have sex. The problem isn't necessarily with the GAMPs or GAMs, just the sociosexual landscape as a whole especially wrt. negative attitudes about "creepy fetishism."

that women who are not attracted to "phenotypically normal women" and were only interested in butches

Gender (the way the word was used before trans got a hold of it) and sex are two different things. Woman is a sex. Butch is a gender. Some people do have a gender axis for their attractions (saying this sort of thing here is likely to get me hanged if misinterpreted.) How else can you describe lesbians who only desire butch women?

But saying that they're not homosexual or bisexual, or worse yet saying that everyone who isn't into masculine men is a "GAMP" or fetishist that can't be gay/bi, is not only pretty shitty but also heinously incorrect.

You're conflating gender and sex.

/u/reluctant_commenter and /u/strictly and I had a thread about whether or not GAMP constitutes bisexuality: https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/6w7h/yes_even_buck_angel/q9cq

I made the point that there are different contexts, one is sex research, the other is well, common parlance. I'm still pretty staunch about the sexology angle, but I'm open-minded about the common usage. The overall problem is that the way we conceive of sexuality strictly in regards to homo/het/bi cannot account for the real sexual diversity that's out there.

We either change the model. Or. We accept that it's "good enough" and that it's not going to work perfectly for every single case.

People, yourself included, take offense when I point out that the model does not capture "X", because they assume I'm claiming that there are problems with the individuals.

[–]reluctant_commenter 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People, yourself included, take offense when I point out that the model does not capture "X", because they assume I'm claiming that there are problems with the individuals.

Worth observing. (I read the rest as well, just, this jumped out at me as being accurate across many contexts.)

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

Was going to comment about GAMP, thanks for doing the legwork lol.