I’m a multipara shemale pit-lab mix. I am very pleased to find a home with my fellow demons. WKFD!
I have plenty to say about this, but I’m presently at a Thing. I will say that if there are any pedos who haven’t read Sex without Shame, by Dr. Aylayne Yates, they should fix that. It’s from the 70s, so it’s a bit scuffed, but it’s one of the most digestible reads that teaches the truth about “human nature” when it comes to sexuality. Suffice to say you’ve been sniffing the red pill, but you haven’t swallowed it yet.
as it happens, I wrote this old thing
https://www.joinforjoy.com/erotic_stories/stories/aromantic.txt
I wrote a response to this a bit ago and had to abandon it when I was almost done. -_-;
Have been a bit overtaxed lately, but I do want to get back to this soon. Just wanted to say that I’m glad you’re well after the hurricane.
I did, because I thought it would work more similarly to how language pickers usually behave. I didn’t intend to deselect undetermined, but it was deselected when I picked English and Japanese.
I put it back, but it seems like it’s still weird.
You can’t. It only lets you pick one language, even though that definitely isn’t how that feature is supposed to work. That’s why it warns you that if you switch from Unspecified, you won’t see a bunch of stuff. The flipside is if you aren’t posting in Unspecified, people will not properly see what you’re saying. You have to edit your posts to change the language to Unspecified or it’s only showing up in my inbox and for people who also changed their language the way it says not to.
I think you’re not supposed to do that. It’s not sufficient to only be able to pick one, and they know that, so that’s why you have to leave it on Undetermined.
PS: Yeah, can’t see your post in the thread now, this is silly. If I switch to English I won’t be able to see most other posts. Hopefully they get that working correctly soon.
Yeah, I’ve certainly noticed that zoos who frequent communities tend to signal really hard about how different they are from every other greek letter. It’s kind of ridiculous, pathetic, and delusional that they think they could ever get the broader society under capitalism to accept them as just regular people who happen to enjoy getting knotted. Such a genuine love of and respect for animals can’t be tolerated within empire, which is founded on exploitation. If they ever were accepted, it’d be because they’re the type to treat animals as sex toys.
Oddly though, talking to weird randos online, and even talking to normqueers one on one in meatspace, I’ve noticed that zoo is a really great thing to setup a para motte-and-bailey with. People who don’t like zoo are almost never gonna care enough to do more than irritate or disappoint you, while people who are at least tolerant enough to have a nice conversation about it will be much less likely to react if you tell them about whatever other things you might have going on.
I have no idea what I could’ve changed that would do this. I only see things in my inbox half the time. They don’t show up in threads after reading. I switched back to Undetermined language, that’s not it.
really difficult to get laid outside of society, unfortunately
only a little bit more so than within it, but it’s something
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?
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.
My desire to reduce attraction is incorrect? Can you explain what you mean?
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.
I have had certain preferences reduce or increase over time as a result of my own behaviors.
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.
But you are okay with expanding it? That can also be conversion therapy.
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.
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.
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.
With that logic, FtM are sexist because they’re not okay with being female, which is the oldest trick in the TERF’s book.
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.
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.
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.
Some people do not even want to bother with fantasy play, because they’d rather do other things with their time.
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.
It’s kinda hell, isn’t it? :V
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.
what the fuck would anyone vote this down for
My understanding of orientation* is that there are multiple components to it besides mental desire, such as physical arousal (and perhaps actions, though that is debated). For instance maybe someone has the mental desire to have sex with a certain gender, or wants to have a certain kink, but has trouble being physically aroused.
That is specifically not part of orientation, or else your orientation would change because you have erectile dysfunction.
On the flip side, I also think there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to reduce or eliminate attraction to others.
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’ve got the gist of it, that stuff is sublimated pedo anyway