Skip to main content

the disphoric as paraphilic...

Paraphilia is defined as the experience of intense sexual arousal to highly atypical objects, situations or individuals.

But what happens when there is a strong connection to something in absence of arousal? Is this still considered a paraphilia?

Before AGP theory existed, we used the term transvestic fetishism to describe the act of becoming aroused by the wearing of women's clothing by a male. Typically such a male would begin acting out his fantasy at or after the age of puberty and develop a repetitive and self gratifying routine involving female clothing. This activity did not interfere with his identity as a male.

But what about those children who had already developed gender confusion due to their strong attraction to a female identity well before the age of puberty?

Proponents of AGP theory state that children as young as 3 can have erections when wearing clothing of the opposite sex which is evidence that their theory holds water.

This is indeed a stretch because speaking from personal experience, I did not experience an erection until after the age of 12 and I was able to enjoy expressing myself as a female in private without being hindered by one. Once the orgasms began to hamper my experience,I actively began my attempts to destroy my feminine side.

And here is where, I propose, we can separate disphorics from non disphorics.

Whereas the fetish transvestite relishes and actively seeks out masturbation while dressed, the disphoric is horrified by its first appearance. His identification to the feminine has just been marred by his burgeoning attraction to females and his parallel self identification as a female. These things are at cross purposes and, not unexpectedly, confusion reigns.

Deeply now aware that his attraction to all things female should be diverted towards an external target and not towards himself, the arousal that comes with the thought of feminization brings tremendous guilt and shame. Every time there is arousal, the thoughts and the clothes get put away or thrown out and there is a promise that it will never happen again.

But is it correct to label someone paraphilic without the intent or even the presence of sexualization which occurs before puberty? Perhaps but then the paraphilia would need to be hard wired and simply manifest itself at a later stage. But if this were true then you should show no signs of interest in female things until the onset of puberty when the sexual identity is constructed?

Why are so many of us fascinated from such an early age? I do not know but these questions put grave doubt into the validity of the paraphilic model because it does not explain the pre pubescent fascination and draw to the feminine in the first place and suggests that it was always sexually based; which is much too simplistic.

This does not jive with my personal experience nor, I suspect, with many of my readers' s.

Comments

  1. Pul-eeese! Her we go again with the self serving, totally unsubstantiated theorizing. If it works for you fine. You can convince yourself of whatever you want if it helps to alleviate the guilt and the shame.

    Why not just admit that your cross-dressing is a simple paraphilia. Lots of people have them, and just accept them as variations in human sexuality. Why the constant need/compulsion/attempts to somehow re-define your "pleasure/need/satisfaction/relief" as something other than sexual.

    This is called 'parsing'. You are trying to somehow carve out this 'special feeling' you had as a young child while wearing your mothers clothing, as non-sexual because you did not get an erection.

    You are using tainted, incomplete anecdotal accounts of demonstrably biased "researchers" as a straw man that is easily dismissed.

    But as I have said all along, it this self-exculpatory "theory" works for YOU, great! Just stop trying too convince me, because I do not need any more bridges. I still think you more closely resemble the classic Type IV, TS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  2. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am theorizing to try and solve a riddle that has stumped me for the longest time. Simply put prove to me that the reason a 6 year old wants to emulate his mother is based on sexual reasons and pulease AQV don't flatter yourself by assuming this blog is written for your benefit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This blog is written and for my benefit and to illicit response from a variety of people. Also note that we are dealing in an area where no conclusive science exists so good luck pushing your views onto everyone else. Your conjecture is as good as mine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It serves your cause to have my condition be a paraphilia because if it werent it would put your own situation much more into question. Otherwise my blog post would not get such a rise out of you.

    Show me conclusive proof that paraphilias can be innate or developped prepubescently...you'll have as much luck as proving the source of transsexualism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh and for the record, my guilt is gone but the intetest remains so you can drop the line about me trying to find exculpatory strawmen. I am simply not convinced that I suffer from transvestic fetishism for the reasons I have clearly explained. You will note as I have repeatedly said that many transsexuals do have orgasms and have had fantasies of feminization prior to transition and this does not make them fetish TVs. Much more here than meets the eye I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh I meant to say elicit lol...damned autocorrect...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Like I said..."Whatever works" for you. The problem that I see is that you seem unable to let go of the "whys and the wherefores" and seem to enjoy your conundrum and beating yourself and everybody else with your endless streams of "theorizing to try and solve a riddle that has stumped me for the longest time".

    As for "proving" that a six year old can be excited by the feel/scent/association with his mother's clothes, that is easy. Just look in the mirror.

    "Show me conclusive proof that paraphilias can be innate or developped prepubescently.."

    Again easy. Just look in the mirror.

    Oh, "and for the record". I never called you a paraphilic fetishist. I suggested that you exhibit the symptoms and behavior of a Type IV - TS.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "During my bi yearly cross dressing periods, I had a massive urge to go out dressed..."

    "I played this charade until my early forties and earnestly believed that I could continue my bi yearly indulgence indefinitely."

    So we are to believe that this long term, repetitive behavior had absolutely no sexual component to the "relief" you found/find so rewarding?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry to keep bugging you on this but you are making so many erroneous assumptions.

    These are but a few

    "But is it correct to label someone paraphilic without the intent or even the presence of sexualization which occurs before puberty?"

    Sure. Why not. Why does it matter when the paraphilia developed?

    " Perhaps but then the paraphilia would need to be hard wired and simply manifest itself at a later stage"

    "...hard-wired..."? Why? Says who"?
    .
    "But if this were true then you should show no signs of interest in female things until the onset of puberty when the sexual identity is constructed?"

    Who says the sexual identity is "constructed" at puberty?

    I could go on....and on, but hopefully you will heed your own words that the whys and wherefores matter less than how you live your life and what makes y happy Why obsess on questions with no answers?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree that I am happy with how I am but I have a curious mind and since other people seem to be constructing stupid theories, I enjoy trying to put the puzzle together. For the record, I never said you accused me of being a fetishist.

    The origin of paraphilias is not currently known but it would make much more sense that since they revolve around arousal that they be developped when sexualisation is present. To ssy that the opposite is true makes less sense and would suggest that they are hard wired or that the predisposition is already there. Again, all conjecture but the idea of development at puberty makes more sense. In light of the fact that for someone like blanchard who is convinced I suffer from a paraphilia based on solely the presence of some eroticism, I have as much right to consider a different angle; most especially since I am in the unique position to be one of the people he tries to analyze.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You will note that the sexual release brought on a purge and not repetitive behavior. If I were seeking sexual excitement I would have simply continued my behavior happily. You seem to repeatedly miss this key point that the driver is somewhere else and this driver is where my disphoria is rooted. The orgasms were an undesired side effect....

    I don't go out as Joanna on a regular basis hoping to get an orgasm.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Look in the mirror?? I'm sorry AQV but that makes no sense. That is a presupposition that I already have a paraphilia because I dress as a female. That's terrible science and coming to a conclusion without evidence or experimentation...try again..

    ReplyDelete
  13. Joanna,

    Don't you think it's time to start ignoring aqv? I think that she is just trying to justify the assumptions she made when she transitioned. Back then if you suffered from gender dysphoria, you either were born with a birth defect (female brain in male body) or you were a pervert. She still advocates that even though there is an ever widening body of scientific knowledge showing that paraphilia has nothing to do with it (almost everyone has paraphilia's that have nothing to do with their gender identity) . Jack Molay has done an excellent job of cataloging and reviewing the TG/TS literature. Likewise, Julia Sorano has done an excellent job of spelling things out in Whipping Girl complete with a multitude of references to peer reviewed scientific studies.

    I think aqv somehow thinks that if she is accepting of the research done since her transition, that it somehow makes her less a woman. In reality it proves her to be even more of one.

    LIndsay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lindsay if there's one thing I DO know for certain is that I am not a pervert and neither are you and yes I agree that jack has done an excellent job in cataloguing the literature which is why I frequent his site. I do not for one minute buy into the paraphilia link to gender disphoria but instead see the orgasms as experiencing the joy of feeling female through male plumbing and mind set if you will.

      Whether someone is or isn't a woman does not interest me in the least since gender disphoria is at its root an abnormality of nature.

      My posting ideas here is not an attempt to rid myself of culpability but to propose new ways of looking at gender disphoria instead of through the odious and simplistic lens of a paraphilia which I am almost certain one develops and not born with.

      Delete
  14. Lindsay, stop being ridiculous. Your arrogance is frankly breathtaking. How would you know what things were like back in the mid fifties. You were not even born and if you were you were still in diapers. How like a man to tell a woman how things are, or were.

    Oh I forgot. You have the "peer reviewed scientific studies" written by other trannies like yourself who spent the majority of their lives as men and then decided to become women, "because they had no choice". ROFLMAO. Give me a break!

    You are so bloody clueless! As you all seem so frantically anxious to "prove", there is no question that there is some biological predisposition behind this phenomenon. However, there is also a biological imperative to mate and kill to eat. Yet somehow, we humans have managed to somehow refrain from shagging everything and anything that moves or breathes and killing our young to eat, although that seems to be coming to be more acceptable as progressives progress.

    If you were 'really' woman, why did/do you choose to keep your maleness, including your pleasure stick and your privileged role in the world. Serano's pseudo-feminism not withstanding, women do not have penises. You guys have chosen to live with your peculiar predilections rather than do what needed to be done IF what you claim is true.

    Trying to have it both ways is what leads to all this BS. As a young blogger once said, "Either you is or you ain't.....a woman. You do don't decide to become one" Pretending to be one or "doing it" part time is just that. Pretending.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AQV I must give credence to lindsay in the sense that you seem to be reacting in a way that shows your womanhood is being threatened by these discussions. I will repeat as I have done many times before that we are not dealing with an exact science which is why there will be no winning argument. The only topic that interests me is the origin of gender disphoria.

    ReplyDelete
  16. My younger brother used to tell me "Don't think...you're not equipped for it". Sometimes over thinking things causes grief and inertia. Perhaps a better phrase from the old days would be "If it feels good, do it.".
    Pat

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why am I not surprised. But thank you for the morning chuckle. You go right ahead and believe what ever you choose. If believing that I feel "threatened" by men you believe, or choose to "see the orgasms as experiencing the joy of feeling female through male plumbing and mind set if you will."...you go right ahead.

    Just for an added chuckle, here is another opinion....

    "Blogger Rosenkreuz said...
    The transgender "movement" is for the most part, a cabal of upper middle class, white Boomer alpha males who attempted to co-opt the language of the radicals they bashed (sometimes literally) in the 60s in order to live out their sex fantasies while appealing to socially progressive sensibilities. These males likely underwent great stress to keep their fetishes secret so in order to relieve that stress, they spent large sums of money and lobbying influence to co-opt the transsexual medical condition by alleging they were the same because they prefer women's clothes, following that up with imposing a false sociocultural reality (of neoclits,of fluid gender and such) designed to to allow them to keep face while living their fetishes.

    It is ironic that the Left has fallen, except for the distasteful radfems, for this hook line and sinker, because "transgenderism" is just white male privilege dressed up as social progressivism. Even someone like Monica Roberts seems to be a token black, who seems to be shoehorning "blackness" into this to divert from the rich white Boomer male nature of the "movement".

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=944795231126319421&postID=6482639824620893153&isPopup=true

    ReplyDelete
  18. The only "movement" I belong to is my own common sense and when push comes to shove it becomes apparent that is more convenient to have me be a fetishist in order to make you feel more secure of your own identity;which is rather unfortunate. If there was an off button for gender disphoria I would have gladly pushed it long ago but reality being what it is that is unlikely to happen.

    The politics of gender disinterests me immensely and I won't become immersed in it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Pat I should heed your advice but I seem to be a glutton for punishment...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Human beings are naturally curious, which means we should always be questioning what's going on around us. To me it would be punishment if I couldn't ask. Accepting someone else's status quo because we can't or won't ask questions is bad.

    Lindsay

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Accepting someone else's status quo because we can't or won't ask questions is bad"

    So why is it so 'bad', when I do not accept your status quo, and ask about it?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

prejudice disguised as objective rectitude

So here is Professor Jordan Peterson perhaps justly calling out the excesses of political correctness gone mad. But then he extends it to not indulging transgender people the basic dignity of being addressed in their preferred pronoun. To do so for him would cost nothing and to stand on literal principle seems to serve little use other than to send a message of disdain.

If you have transitioned or even live as the opposite gender is costs me nothing to address you in your preferred pronouns. What difference does it make to me and what am I trying to tell you when I don't?

Peterson wants to stand on his rights to call reality what it is except that in this case the exact objective escapes me. But of course the right wing Federalist is in love with him because he calls a spade a spade.

If I see a rock I can call it that but then the rock doesn’t have any feelings. To address a transgender woman "her" and "she" is not undermining my rights as a person in any way b…

"Oh please its 2016!"

I have mentioned before that I have a lovely young couple living above the unit next to mine. Well the other day as I was getting in the door, she and I overlapped for the first time with me dressed as a woman.

We had a nice conversation and at some point I mentioned the obvious which was that I had told her future husband that they might see me in a different guise from time to time so they wouldn't wonder about who the strange woman was. She just looked at me almost rolling her eyes while smiling from ear to ear and said:

"Oh Please it's 2016!"

For the record she was also very complementary regarding my choice of attire.

I could care less at this point in my life what people think but it is still lovely to see the millennial generation's freedom of spirit and acceptance so lacking in previous generations. Yes they have their own foibles, as does every generation, but this area certainly isn't one of them.

the pseudoscience behind gender dysphoria

The real science as to what causes gender dysphoria still awaits.

Harry Benjamin was on to something except he didn’t have the scientific evidence to back up his suspicions hence, like a true scientist, he negated to draw conclusions. His hunch, based on treating so many patients over his lifetime, was that one is born with a predisposition to be gender dysphoric.

However, with inconclusive brain scans and no DNA marker (as of yet) we are left with believing the word of people who need help and only want to lead happy and productive lives.

The best we have been able to muster since Benjamin's death in 1986 was to amass statistics on who gets a boner imagining themselves as a woman which is in equal parts pathetic and disappointing. For this is not really science at all but is instead playing with interview data that doesn't point to anything definitive or conclusive. I have dealt with this problem at great length in my blog.

The whole thing started with Kurt Freund's obses…