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 →

[–]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.