all 19 comments

[–]ElectricSheep 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

If I was only attracted to women and myself, I wouldn't call myself bisexual, I'd call myself ill, or a fetishist. I'm attracted to other men and women, which in my opinion, is the definition of bisexual. What you're describing is AGP full stop, no need to invent new language to get around it or feel special.

Also, I hate how often we get dragged into fetishist / trans discussions. I don't really understand how we became the whipping boy for justification for all of their weird shit. Not a judgment on you, OP, I know you're just asking questions, but an annoyance with those groups in general.

[–]usehername[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Thanks, Sheep. I understand and agree with your grievances, but I felt this topic was important to discuss because of the word often used to describe it: pseudobisexuality, which concerns us.

I don't really understand how we became the whipping boy for justification for all of their weird shit

I think it's because there are a lot of fetishists with such severe fetishes they appear to no longer be monosexual who attempt to cram themselves into a description of a normal sexual orientation.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

In my goal of facilitating I would like to provide some orientation data for various phenomena.

Furries: 84% non-heterosexual identity:

"Of the male furries in our sample, 143 (42.8%) identified themselves as bisexual, 106 (31.7%) as homosexual/gay, 53 (15.9%) as heterosexual/straight, and 9 (2.7%) as asexual. The remaining 23 (6.9%) participants chose the response “other,” and the most common explanation was that they identified as pansexual."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-018-1303-7

BDSM: 46.4% non-heterosexual identity:

"Of the 268 participants who responded to an open-ended prompt assessing sexual orientation, the majority identi- fied as heterosexual (53.6%) or primarily heterosexual with some qualification provided (14.6%), such as ‘straightish’, ‘mostly straight’ and ‘straight with a little flexibility’. Approximately one-quarter of the respondents indicated a sexual minority orientation (21.1% bisexual, 2.6% gay, 1.8% lesbian and 2.6% queer), and 3.6% of respondents used a BDSM role as their sexual orientation (e.g. ‘top’ or ‘slave’).

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19419899.2012.700028

Trans: Overall 82% non-heterosexual identity.

Trans women: 6% asexual, 20% bisexual, 27% gay/lesbian, 16% pansexual, 6% queer, 19% heterosexual, 6% other. Trans men: 7% asexual, 12% bisexual, 12% gay/lesbian, 15% pansexual, 24% queer, 23% heterosexual, 5% other.

https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf

EDIT:

United States general population: Non-heterosexual identity: 3%.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/sexual_orientation/ASI_2018_STWebsite_Tables-508.pdf

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

Those are some really great stats. I think it's clear that a lot of these hard-core fetishists are more interested in the fetish than in other people, to the point of being able to engage with members of a sex they aren't attracted to, as long as their fetish is involved. I think these people are skewing the stats that show that bisexuals tend to have more fetishes and STDs.

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

Thank you for sharing these stats, I will have to look further into them later when I am off work Gatito!

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

what's up do you think with the over-representation of homosexuals in those stats (well the furry ones anyway)? you're taking two rare-ish phenomena, the overlap should be statistically low.

Bisexuals I can understand because they would get into it regardless of the sex of the person should the paraphilia be present.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Since the thread seems to have run its course:

you're taking two rare-ish phenomena, the overlap should be statistically low

Precisely. So the question is: is there a "thing" that inclines people to homosexuality and bisexuality that also inclines them to paraphilia? (I could write an essay on this statement. I know the legacy, the politics, etc.) Do paraphiles demonstrate significant big five trait openness, and this is what causes their same-sex experimentation and thus identity? Or, my preferred hypothesis: it is the paraphilia they're after, and the model of het/homo/bi does not adequately accommodate that?

Dendrophilia is a sexual interest in trees. Classify that as het/homo/bi? You can't.

Bisexuals I can understand because they would get into it regardless of the sex of the person should the paraphilia be present.

While I presently maintain that a person can be classically bi/het/homo and also have a paraphilia, I do believe that people with significant paraphilic interest--things other than sex and sexed bodies--this often leads them to a bisexual identity, since they're doing the paraphilia with both sexes. Sex isn't as relevant to them. It's the paraphilia they're after; sex matters not.

what's up do you think with the over-representation of homosexuals in those stats (well the furry ones anyway)?

I don't know. I need to go suss that one out in person. Could be strictly paraphilic (wouldn't that be something?), could be both euphilic and paraphilic. My gaydar is dialed in, I can discern classic sexual orientation often by just looking at a still of a person's face. (Which shouldn't come as a surprise. Orientation isn't magic; there's lots of biomarkers.) This virus just has to let up, and they have to find a venue to host them. Godspeed, furries.

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

I personally wonder if there are sexes or sexualities that are more likely to go develop particular paraphilias. I know there is an under-representation of women in the fury community, but on the flip side there is an A/B/O community on tumblr that is full of (heterosexual) women. It would be possible to argue that they are expressing the same paraphilia differently, but to me these two fetishes (on the surface) look very different.

So maybe there is something about being a gay man that inclines the person towards being a fury cf. other paraphilias?

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

I personally wonder if there are sexes or sexualities that are more likely to go develop particular paraphilias.

It's parroted that men posses most paraphilias, but there's no scientific evidence to support this. It's all anecdotal. My anecdotes conflict with the popular opinion, primarily masochism (pain, power, humiliation) in women. A sprinkling of sadism as well. (Think BDSM.)

I think this sentiment is in large part due to the psychiatric and psychological professions having dealt with primarily men as their patients, usually in a criminal context. It may be that men and women are inclined to develop different sorts of paraphilias, different thematic clusters.

However, it could follow that what makes people gay, lesbian, or bi could also incline them towards paraphila, among a great deal of other psychological traits. It's entirely possible, and there's some evidence to suggest it, but that's generally not a politically correct thing to say.

As far as gay and furry goes, I was reading a journal article about a community of zoophiles. Not furries, people who like real animals. (Totally normal hobby, I assure you--reading this sort of stuff.) Among them, there were a cohort (there were several) of men who exclusively desired male animals, and they labeled themselves homosexual. Point being, are these gay furries homosexual in the classic sense and just happen to also be furries? Where is their sense of "male" being derived from in terms of their attractions--male humans, or male anthropomorphic animals? What about a female human in a male-presenting fursuit? Outstanding question.

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

what's up do you think with the over-representation of homosexuals in those stats

Probably they're such fetishists that they require the feeling of disgust to get off, which could be induced by engaging in the same sex as a heterosexual.

[–]PeakingPeachEater 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is an interesting topic, thanks for sharing.

In regards to counting autosexuals as liking the same-sex...

I would say...No, it doesn't count unless they are actively seeking out the same sex. For example, if a straight woman finds herself HIGHLY attractive but finds all other women unattractive sexually/romantically, then she is not bisexual. I would say bisexuality is the attraction towards other men & women---not including oneself.

I do see your point tho, because if said straight women is attracted to herself, a woman, and the definition of bisexuality is attraction to males/men and females/women, then technically, wouldn't she be bisexual? I say no because she doesn't want to be romantically nor sexually involved with other women because she's a heterosexual.

Once again, thanks for sharing it was a food for a thought.

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

I was thinking more if someone is autosexually attracted to the fantasy of themselves as the opposite sex--vs a true autosexual attraction--and people of the same sex, because they are specifically attracted to the opposite characteristics, even if only on themselves. Your point still stands, and I agree with your definition of bisexuality.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm going to do my very best to dodge a repetition of my recent participation on this topic elsewhere, and hopefully just provide perhaps some framework or prompts to further the discussion for OP's goal.

I also think it's possible for a fetish to be so strong it overrides one's sexual orientation, so I'm conflicted.

Fetishes have caused people to volitionally amputate their own limbs. Apotemnophilia describes that sexual motivation, but there also appear to be other, non-sexual psychopathologies that can cause such a desire. Acrotomophilia is the counterpart to that, a sexual desire for amputees. These can be, and often are, found in the same person. In that way, it's a parallel to AGP men who desire women, and understanding amputee fetishism (scientifically) is likely a good way to start learning about AGP. Similar enough to matter, different enough to provide a different perspective. Taaaangent....

AGP also, on occasion, causes men to self-amputate their own genitalia, rather than under the auspices of a surgeon.

Homosexuality is criminalized in many countries, some having the death penalty for it. Yet, upon pain of death, gay men are still trying to self-actualize, getting caught, and being executed.

The point I'm trying to make is that sexuality is very, very compelling, irrespective if we consider it abnormal or normal, respectively. People die for it. People kill because of sexual jealousy, paraphilia not required.

True bisexuality or pseudobisexuality.

I think this can't be answered until the topic is concluded as to what constitutes "genuine," in a philosophical sense. Or, another way to frame it that could be very revealing, is what constitutes "inauthenticity?"

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

Thanks for your participation. There's a lot of stuff to think about here.

I think this can't be answered until the topic is concluded as to what constitutes "genuine," in a philosophical sense. Or, another way to frame it that could be very revealing, is what constitutes "inauthenticity?"

I guess an inauthentic bisexual is someone who, after years of not engaging their fetish(es), no longer experiences attraction to both sexes, proving their bisexuality was not hard-wired, and simply the result of a fetish.

[–]MarkJefferson 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is a tricky one actually. I'm assuming you mean- for example, when a male is attracted to the idea of having sex with a male, while imagining themselves as a female: I think they are bisexual if they cease thinking of themselves as female and yet still like the idea of having sex with a male. If their attraction to having sex with males goes away when they stop thinking of themselves as female, then they are "pseudo-bisexual", or Heterosexual. Real sexual orientation can exist independent of any fetish.

I don't think I ever got sexually stimulated while imagining myself as female. I'm directly attracted to the bodies of men and women. Not saying my private imaginings are so clean and pure as that of a Saint, but I can pretty much detach the very idea of myself and any extraneous fantasy bonuses from the whole scene and the same-sex and opposite-sex attractions would still be there.

[–]PeakingPeachEater 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If their attraction to having sex with males goes away when they stop thinking of themselves as female, then they are "pseudo-bisexual", or Heterosexual. Real sexual orientation can exist independent of any fetish.

Ohhh, that makes a lot of sense. I think maybe I misunderstood prompt with my answer. I like this answer.

Is that what you meant u/usehername?

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

Yes, I might have been drunk while writing it originally lol celebrating the end of the semester. Yes that's the gist.

[–]PenseePansy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Neither; just sounds like heterosexuality with extra steps to me.

Cuz a man who's turned on by imagining himself as a woman is simply... female-attracted. Sure, he's attracted to himself, but that "self" is, in his mind, A WOMAN. The fact that he's really a dude isn't part of the fantasy. Like, if a guy is turned on by a first-person prose account of a hot woman doing sexy stuff, does that mean HE'S bisexual? How? The erotic focus is on women. And women ONLY. So he's Straighty McStraighterson as far as I can tell.

Have I ever experienced this or something like it? Only in the sense of enjoying sexual scenarios from a male, as well as female, perspective (though I don't literally imagine myself as a guy, or another woman, for that matter). And, crucially, my erotic focus is on BOTH sexes.

So I'm not a "pseudobisexual"; I'm the real deal :)

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

Thanks for your input! I agree.