I question the utility of transorientation. It feels like it’s based on a misframing of what orientation is and how it works. I certainly understand the desire to change the sort of sex you can emotionally handle, but we already have a very excellent model for this from regular queers: internalized phobia. Your orientation is already “the direction you move towards.” That’s what the word means completely out of the context of sex, and it’s used to describe sexual desire because you generally spend your life “moving towards” the sexual partners you want. Unless, of course, you hate yourself for it, because God said don’t fuck that way. You don’t have to think of it as God; if there’s something stopping you, I promise that’s what it is, because the fake bullshit anglocapitalist protestant God is ultimately source of all modern mind control.
With that said, I also don’t hate it? I can see how maybe saying it this way could be a sort of shorthand? I just want you to be aware of the sort of things psychs would be likely to say about this idea. With more cussing and criticism of the status quo.
An important reason why I don’t think it’s a great idea though is that it strongly implies that a desire to reduce one’s range of attraction would also be valid. You know, the whole “I wish I didn’t want this illegal thing.” This is how you get to the normie framing of treating it like an addiction. This would be paramisia!
That is specifically not part of orientation, or else your orientation would change because you have erectile dysfunction.
It is not generally wrong to want that for yourself, no. However, it is, generally speaking, incorrect. There’s a reason good psychs treat orientation as sacred to the point that they validate paraphilias as orientations. You cannot change what you want, only deny it. It does often change by itself, but it’s almost never a thing you consciously control without self-harm.
Reducing one’s sexuality is specifically pretty much the worst thing you can try to do to yourself. In practical terms, it is conversion therapy. Don’t do that! And yes, if your desire is specifically something like “I don’t want to be attracted to children,” that’s absolutely 100% internalized paramisia and shouldn’t be welcome here. “Okay with gays but I don’t want to be one” is the oldest trick in internalized homophobia’s book. Applying standards to yourself that you wouldn’t for others is how it works, and telling yourself it’s just another aspect of your self-authorship is a cope that lets you fit the idea into a radqueer context.
All of the reasons a person might want to get rid of their attractions are actually reasons they should be engaging in the spicy fantasy play that is usually recommended for attractions that must be fictionalized.
you seem to be thinking of just lessering your attractions but transorientation is actually usually the opposite from what I’ve seen >p<
That mostly seems to be the case here so far, sure. The issue is that if this concept exists, it includes the other direction.
To the extent there is a physiological default, it’s unfettered pansexuality. I feel like a better framing is to view orientation as a set of rules to try to get rid of.
I feel like arousal is part of orientation, or at least, an individual’s sexuality. If I want to get turned on by men but can only get turned on by women, doesn’t that say something about my orientation or sexuality?
My desire to reduce attraction is incorrect? Can you explain what you mean? Is it factually incorrect? Morally incorrect?
I’m not sure what you are referring to as “what you want”. If it’s referring to our mental desires or behavior - I somewhat disagree. I have had certain preferences reduce or increase over time as a result of my own behaviors. I felt no physical or mental harm from this. Granted, it was not a complete change, but a tilting of the scale.
But you are okay with expanding it? That can also be conversion therapy. In one case, someone wants to have no attraction because society tells them that’s morally correct, while another person wants to be attracted to something because society tells them that’s morally correct.
The problem with conversion therapy IMO is that it is often forced onto an individual who doesn’t want it, the individual is choosing it because of societal or religious doctrines, stigma, phobia, and most methods involve traumatic aversion therapy and medications that end up causing physical and emotional harm. I do think as technology and science advances, we’ll find safer and better ways to allow people to transition in any and all facets they want.
With that logic, FtM are sexist because they’re not okay with being female, which is the oldest trick in the TERF’s book. Same goes for transracial and racism. Discomfort towards engaging in (or identifying as) something yourself doesn’t mean that you hate people who participate in that, neither does it mean you think it’s “wrong”. I don’t like camping, but I don’t hate people who go camping or think it’s wrong.
Some people do not even want to bother with fantasy play, because they’d rather do other things with their time.
Orientation refers strictly to desire. Arousal is what your body does, and it categorically does not have an orientation.
It’s important to remember that a consequence of the gender binary not being real is binary attraction not being real, either. The physiological default is pan, with a lean towards one gender or another that would put the vast majority of people at either Kinsey 2 or 4 if the world weren’t yelling at them about it all the time. An orientation is effectively the filter your internalized phobias apply to your personal taste.
Yes. It is psychologically incorrect. Reducing one’s sexuality causes harm to the mind and body for no gain. Well… You do become more normie- and especially Christian-passing. That can be a pretty big gain, socially, but if you’re willing to rip out parts of yourself for that, yes, I would call it morally wrong.
If you’re claiming you reduced a desire on purpose and it did you no harm, I frankly just don’t believe you. You’re disregarding a harm that was done. “Wanting something you’re not supposed to” is the essence of a moral conflict. You don’t get in a moral conflict with yourself without suffering. You may not have framed it as one, because it’s the most common thing ever to apply standards to oneself that one would not apply to others. That’s what it is though; the moral system you feel, as opposed to the one you think, still hates you.
There are times when an addiction, compulsion, or dependency makes it necessary to reduce a behavior, and time away from something that has that kind of hook in you can make the desire less intense over time. This is because that kind of desire is not something built into your body, the way a sex drive is.
Most psychs worth talking to are skeptical about the mainstream approach to addiction in general, but especially with respect to sex. “Sex addiction” is more propaganda than psychology. The scientifically supported way to deal with desires that would be harmful if realized is to sublimate, i.e., fictionalize them. Art, literature, consensual fantasy play. You cannot get rid of the desire in a healthy way. You must manage the behavior.
No. Conversion therapy always seeks to reduce. The term was invented to describe the attempt to reduce, remove, or replace homosexuality. They always try to give you a het partner at some point, because “replace” is seen as the most humane and successful form of it and most importantly you’re doing your duty to anglocapitalism by making Christian babies. But they fully expect you to not actually have sex with that partner 99% of the time because they know that it doesn’t actually work and you’re just powering through dysphoria the whole time you’re continuing with the charade they put you in.
And the queers do it, too. Sissy hypno doesn’t work so I’m not mad at it, but it is literally fantasy play conversion therapy to make you gay instead of straight. There’s no cultural phenomenon of people having a particular way of trying to make others bi or pan, because almost nobody does that by any method other than just being a slut. Coercively altering peoples’ sexuality, either as fantasy or for real, is pretty much always about taking away a targeted part of it. You can’t really add things; they’re already there, buried under your current orientation.
Not this one. Thinking that it is generally good to be able to change what you want is a category error. That being a thing people can do would just put a bullet in even the appearance of free will. Very quickly, the socially acceptable answer to you disliking anything about your life would be to change what you like and deal with it. It’s easier and more convenient to everyone else than fixing your silly fake problem. You totally didn’t need legs.
If you think that’s the same logic, you’re effectively saying internalized phobias do not exist. I don’t think you can believe that unless you’re straight. How can you not have noticed it happening to you, otherwise?
It definitely is not the same logic, however, simply because orientation and gender are not similar. A person’s gender is the region on a spectrum between “male” and “female” that they are most comfortable living in. Orientation is a set of rules society makes you follow instead of “I do what I want.” Gender presentation certainly has lots to do with that kind of bullshit as well, but gender itself is more directly affected by genetic and neurological factors which cannot be socialized away. Being transsexual (I use this word in this case specifically because I’m talking about people who medically transition) is inherently different from other forms of transid because none of the other ones are something it makes any kind of sense to take a pill about.
This is a really, really, really bad approach for transrace specifically but I don’t think I want to elaborate because I have a feeling that discussion will get so awful I’ll get banned.
It’s pretty pointless to say you want something that you think the correct amount of time spent on it, even in your brain, is zero. That’s the opposite of wanting it. That’s some POCD nonsense. You’re describing an intrusive thought rather than a desire at that point.
Also, if you value sex that little, I think it’s fair to call it sex negativity. Of course that’s not good or healthy.