I guess they do !

I have a personal problem with being critical of devotees in general because I don’t see myself as being fit to pass judgement. I am highly attracted to people who are mentally ill, whether it be as friends or romantically. I am talking about emotional attraction here; it’s not a sexual turn on. “Is this creepy?”, I ask myself. Is it less creepy because I am also mentally ill?

Last week I asked these questions of my best friend, who is a psychotherapist. Her answer was that she feels the same way as me about people who are mentally ill. No wonder we love each other!

But it is true that the issues are more complicated wiht trans people (definitely transgendered, probably also transabled). If a person is attracted to trans men for their bodies, it’s difficult to tell if the person can look at a “female” body and think ‘man’ or if they’re attracted to the idea of “deception”. You also get into the issues of pre/non/post-op and how trans people see their bodies.

It is true that trans men ARE men, but different men have different experiences. Some people are even attracted to (or not) only children over people with many siblings because of the experience differences. The experiences of trans men can make them more appealing to people than the experiences of cis men, but if that’s based on “trans men are all ___” then there’s a problem- even to cis men. For example, “Trans men are sensitive because they know what it’s like to be women” is problematic to trans men because not all of them consider their experiences at all similar to cis women’s and they aren’t all “better than” cis men in that respect, and also to cis men by implying that they’re incapable of being sensitive.

I also think that there’s a limit to how similar the transabled and transgendered experiences are. The social issues involving differently abled people are extremely complex and don’t always parallel gender issues. Most people don’t expect a woman to get a sex change to “fix” her sex even if the option were presented, but if there’s a way to fix your disability, many people expect differently abled people to take it (or even think it’s acceptable to force it on them). The idea that a person would “choose” to be differently abled is horrific on a different level then the idea of “choosing” to be a woman because many people consider differently abled people to be broken- while it’s not acceptable to think women or men are.

I’d imagine it’s possible that there’s something about transabled people that’s different to non-transabled PWDs that people could be attracted to. Maybe differences in outlook or something. I think it really depends on what or how a person is attracted. It definitely seems plausible, though.

But aren’t trannychasers really more analogous specifically to BIID devotees than to devotees in the sense that we use here? Which brings us to the question: is there such a thing as a BIID devotee per se? I can imagine a devotee being interested in a person with a leg brace regardless of whether it belongs to someone with a disability or someone with BIID. I shall have to ask my devotee whether it does or does not make any difference to her whether I have a physical need for leg braces. Likewise I can imagine a devotee being interested in someone with a disability regardless of whether it is physical or needed on account of BIID. Here is the question then. Are there people out there who are attracted specifically to people with BIID but NOT to PWDs? Would this not be the analogy to someone who is attracted to trans men but not to cis men? If so, do I find this inherently offensive? It’s the idea of someone finding me attractive specifically because they perceive me as NOT being disabled even though I identify as being disabled. What do I think of this? After all, trans men ARE men. People with BIID ARE disabled.

Am I tying myself up in knots? Sometimes I can’t think my way out of a paper bag. ;o(

Binary systems are problematic, in this case it’s extremely limiting, but I often end up falling into them anyways. When you’re brought up being taught to categorize everything it can be hard to break out of that. It was binary, and this is yet another example of extremely squiggly situations and lovely grey areas, but I still get uncomfortable with more positive attraction/affection being associated with more negative (both objective things, but I’d think stalking would count as negative even if everything else is a grey area).

I won’t say that devoteees, or anyone, should be assumed to be a non-nice person or to have bad intentions. I’d rather believe that most people in general, devotees included, are nice people with good intentions. Even some of the devotees who have less optimal ways of perceiving the people they’re attracted to can be very nice and have good intentions, even if their actions/ideas might be inadvertently detrimental.
But because there are devotees, and people in general, who aren’t nice or have bad intentions or even are inadvertently detrimental while trying to be nice, it can effect the perception of devotees.

Firstly I wanted to thank you for that link to your website. I hope that others here will visit too. I think we are fundamentally on the same side. I’m glad that there are people out there debunking the artificial gender binary system. Although I identify as a woman, I am well aware that I have some qualities that some might consider stereotypically masculine. Well, tough! I am who I am and I’m not going to conform my behaviours in order to fit in with societal expectations.

Thank you also for helping destigmatise asexuality. I identify as both asexual and polyamorous. This may sound contradictory, but for me it is not. I don’t have sex in order to have sex, and I certainly don’t want orgasms. I have sex for social reasons.

Back to the points of disagreement. I don’t actually remember saying “devotees are awesome”, but I might as well have done because it does indeed accurately reflect both my experience and my feeling. What I do NOT intend to convey with that is a logically thought out conclusion from my (non-existent) doctoral dissertation in social studies. I don’t see how it could be either good or bad to say such a thing. It is simply an honest statement about my feelings. Perhaps it may also be a statement about my personality. I trust everyone without question and I never assume anyone to have malevolent intentions.

As for “two very different groups” of devotees. Are you not making the same thinking error as those who insist on the gender binary? Personally I am very suspicious of all binary classifications. That is seldom how the world actually works. I don’t see how one can categorise devotees into these two distinct groups any more than one can categorise gender into male and female. I have too many genderqueer friends to think I can assign gender based on anatomy or presentation.

If someone says that they are a devotee I shall assume that they are a nice person until proven otherwise.

Devotees/Chasers in the negative sense often have a narrow view of what the object of their devotion is. They can be abusive to partners to ensure that their partner stays in this narrow view, they can deny the needs and individuality of their partner, they often don’t see the partner as a human and equal that deserves respect- but as an exoticized thing. A trophy to parade around.

Yes- people can be attracted to intersexed bodies just like they can be attracted to bodies with the 2 more common sexes. But no matter what body a person is attracted to- if they objectify that person in their attraction and deny the person’s individuality, it’s a problem.

I think it’s important to separate people who objectify and dehumanize or obsess over and stalk the “object” of their devotion from people who are attracted to [group] in a way that respects them as people, in the same way that most people would be attracted to brunettes or a great smile.

I don’t think it’s good to say “devotees are awesome!” or speculate about why people would think ill of “devotees” without first separating those two groups. All you did was differentiate stalkers from everyone else- when there are many more layers to the problem than just stalking.

We are all biased by our own encounters. I have had only one real life experience with a devotee. She and I continue to flirt extensively, kiss, etc. When we have the opportunity to sit next to each other she delights in feeling my leg braces with her hands. I enjoy her delight. One of the things that makes it not creepy is that she is completely open about my leg braces being an erotic turn on for her. Another thing that seems to make it not creepy is that she herself had a spinal cord injury. Her sensory loss is astoundingly similar to my own, so we both know exactly how to utilise this for erotic effect. She also knows all about my BIID and is completely supportive of that.

For me it comes down to honesty. If a devotee is going to pretend to like me just so that they can get close to my leg braces, then that is creepy. If they are honest about disclosing that my leg braces are a sexual turn on, and can also convey a genuine regard for me as a person, then they have some brownie points to work with.

Someone whose entire image of devotees comes from those kinds of stalkers is going to have a negative perception, no matter how comfortable or uncomfortable they are with their own body. If you want to change how many disabled people see devotees, it seems like “Many are willing to respect your boundaries, accept that you don’t owe anyone sexual satisfaction, not presume some sort of self-esteem problem if you’re just not into the whole devotee thing, and condemn any inappropriate or threatening behavior in devotee communities” would go over a lot better than “How can you not like devotees? Is it because you don’t like yourself?”

I’m not really into foot fetishes as a kink, would rather not contemplate or participate in any foot-focused sexual acts, and have no problem with people enjoying and practicing their foot fetish so long as they respect my lack of interest. That doesn’t mean I hate my feet or have self-esteem issues. I’m not into disability as a kink, would rather not contemplate or participate in any activity that involves others getting off on my disability, and have no problem with people practicing their kink so long as they respect my boundaries and lack of interest. That doesn’t mean I don’t accept myself or my disability.

I wonder how much agreement there is regarding what constitutes a weakness. For me the word conjures up such things as inability to apologise, machismo, homophobia, racism… For me such weaknesses would be an immediate turn off and not in any way sexually attractive.

The phrase “taken advantage of” hit a nerve. It is something that my closer friends use to refer to me not infrequently, including a couple of occasions very recently. They are not being critical, just trying to look out for my best interests. They have pointed out a number of times in my life when I have fallen prey to sexual predators. The core of the issue is my social naivety, in that I am oblivious to malevolence. Not good for office politics!

There is the question of sexual orientation. Why am I a lesbian? It is certainly not because I perceive women to be weak, because I don’t. Is it innate? Is it because women tend to have particular qualities? Is it because I have had particular experiences? I don’t know. But then, as Phil implies, perhaps I neither need to know nor can know.

Aren’t you saying that finding someone, who uses assistive devices, sexually attractive on account of their perceived weakness is objectionable?

Yes, in the general (negative) sense of the word weakness (i.e. something to be pitied, avoided, taken advantage of, etc.).

If so, then is it not also objectionable to be sexually attracted to women in general because of their perceived weakness?

Yes, any person who sees someone as weak in the above sense for any reason and bases an attraction on that perception has an objectionable attraction.

Yes. As long as there is no proof that the judgments are better than those about homosexuality.

That doesn’t mean anything to me unless you specify what “better” means in this context.

But when we want to understand, only love will lead us further.

Unless you can offer some proof that this is true, or at least may be true, it is an empty statement to me.

And if there are inner drives, on what basis could we judge them?

I cannot answer this question. It is clear that you have an idea about the nature of “inner drives” that suggests that judging them is or may be problematic in some way, but because you have not made it explicit, I cannot address it. Perhaps it will clarify things if I say that I only meant “inner drives” as a synonym for motivations.

Motivation is just our hypothetical construct. Nobody ever has seen it, touched it.

So is “love.” So are all kinds of abstract concepts that have been invoked in the course of this discussion. What is your point?

I would say it is a big secret. Nobody knows.

The fact that you are speaking for everyone, without offering any justification, keeps me from taking this statement seriously.

So I asked you what your motivation is to judge.

In general, or in this specific case? In general, I possess an analytical mind, and see value in judgment.

Given that you think you know enough about motivation

Actually, I’ve never stated or implied anything even vaguely similar to this statement.

But this is not a problem of devotees, it is a problem of all human behaviour which is not as humane as it should be.

That is obvious, but I do not see that it is relevant.

How much of your response is coloured by your own prejudices?

Prejudices against whom, or what? I’m not sure how you expect me to answer that.

It should read:”Handle so, dass du die Menschheit sowohl in deiner Person, als auch in der Person eines jeden anderen jederzeit zugleich als Zweck, niemals bloß als Mittel brauchest.”

In my trial to translate:
“Act in such a way that you use mankind both in your person and in the person of every other person always at the same time as a purpose, never only as means.”

So I should have written “a purpose in themselves” (and of course not: “a means …”).

you ask: “Are you implying that the fact that some people were (still are, actually) unfairly judgmental about homosexuality indicates that all judgments about all types of attractions are wrong?”

Yes. As long as there is no proof that the judgments are better than those about homosexuality.

This would lead us far into philosophy. I have worked in the field of motivation research and theory, and the more I have done research, the more I have found that it is true what the textbooks say: That “motivation” is merely a hypothetical construct. Or in the words of Blaise Pascal: “Le coeur a ses raisons qui la raison ne connait pas.” (The heart has its reasons which reason doesn’t know.)

The sentence “It is what it is, says love” stems from a poem by Erich Fried. It says that judgments are only possible when one looks at something without love. Of course, we cannot always look at everything only with love. But when we want to understand, only love will lead us further.

You ask: “I disagree. I don’t even understand how you can come to this conclusion. If there is no motivation, how is it that we love some and not others? On what basis do we distinguish if not according to the dictates of our inner drives?”

Motivation is just our hypothetical construct. Nobody ever has seen it, touched it. The same applies to “our inner drives”. Are we driven, or are we driving?

And if there are inner drives, on what basis could we judge them?

Do you know why you prefer the food you do prefer? Do you know why you fall in love with somebody?

I would say it is a big secret. Nobody knows. And maybe that is good.

You ask: “What judgment and “system” are you referring to?”

Answer: The same system of thinking and feeling from which you have judged on devotees and their way to be attracted. You wrote about motivation. So I asked you what your motivation is to judge. Isn’t that a simple question? What comes out when you apply your knowledge or theory about motivation to yourself, to your arguments? Given that you think you know enough about motivation, and given that you have been courageous enough to judge upon different motives.

I think I understand the centre of your argumentation. Another person never should be an object, always be a “means in themselves” (Kant).

But this is not a problem of devotees, it is a problem of all human behaviour which is not as humane as it should be. Look at the economy, at the behavior of us all as consumers, dealers, etc…

Aren’t you saying that finding someone, who uses assistive devices, sexually attractive on account of their perceived weakness is objectionable? If so, then is it not also objectionable to be sexually attracted to women in general because of their perceived weakness?

That said, “devotees” are not always men devs interested in disabled women.

That’s completely obvious. I merely gave one example, and in fact I made it clear that I was only mentioning one example. Really,

you are insulting my intelligence with this comment.

The other thing is that the negative connotation of impairments and assistive devices are usualy borne in the minds of

able bodied individuals who have a rather poor perception of life with a disability really is like.

While this reason for a negative perspective of disabilities is certainly likely in some cases, I’m not convinced that it is “usually” the

case.

The consensus in those circles is that an impairment in and of itself is neutral.

Neutral from what perspective, in what context, though? In the context of an organized, stable society where securing the means of

survival is as simple as a trip to the grocery store, signing a lease and renting a moving van, etc., sure impairments can easily be seen

as neutral. Lost in the wilderness on a camping trip, though, someone who can see is better off than someone who is blind. In a

country where the economy is such that survival is heavily dependent upon one’s physical labor, people who have the full use of their

limbs are better off than those who don’t. If one loves music and loses one’s hearing, even the most deaf-friendly society isn’t going

to ameliorate one’s sense of loss. The point is that there are perspectives from which to view disabilities, other than the ignorance or

misunderstanding of what it’s like to live with them and the cognizance of a non-accessible society that you mentioned, in which it is

completely legitimate to view them as negative.

Further, many of these people have said that it was “refreshing” to have people attracted to them (in part) because of

their disabilities, rather than have people turned off or repulsed by those disabilities.

If the alternative is having people being repulsed by one’s disability, I’m sure that having it attract people may be preferable for some

people. However, whether or not such people are truly content or happy to have their disability recognized as a source of attraction,

or simply content with what they see as the lesser of two evils is a relevant factor to consider. Maybe some of these people would

actually prefer that others see their disability in a neutral light, but have more or less given up on that preference after years of

experience with being seen as a disabled person, as opposed to just a person.

It’s not ALL about men oppressing women, you know?

Did someone say that it was?

(1) who knows really why he/she likes or does something?

Some people, in some circumstances, to some extent.

(2) We have to overcome being judgmental. It is what it is, says love. Neither good nor bad.

I’m not discussing love, per se, but the drives behind it. All love in and of itself may be neutral, but, for example, loving someone for

their intelligence or sense of humor and being a control freak who “loves” someone because they are a pushover are not on a level.

There were times when people thought that a man who loves a man was evil (”negative”), and one found easily a lot of

(hypothetical) motivations.

I don’t see your point. Are you implying that the fact that some people were (still are, actually) unfairly judgmental about

homosexuality indicates that all judgments about all types of attractions are wrong?

There is no “motivation”, there only is love (and sometimes sex).

I disagree. I don’t even understand how you can come to this conclusion. If there is no motivation, how is it that we love some and

not others? On what basis do we distinguish if not according to the dictates of our inner drives?

From what motivation comes your judgment? Please apply your system to your own motivation and

behaviour.

What judgment and “system” are you referring to?

Assistive devices do not have negative connotations for me. Nor do I perceive people with disabilities as being weak,

helpless, inferior, etc.

That is quite obvious, which is why I thought perhaps you’d overlooked it as a motivation for people’s objection to devoteeism.

If people are attracted to women because they are weak

Is this directed at me? I have neither stated nor implied that “people are attracted to women because they are weak.” Women don’t

have to be weak; it’s standard practice all over the world for societies to make up and/or exaggerate qualities of womanhood and then

decide that they are attractive, although of course not every person in the society buys into it.

If people are attracted to women because they are weak, doesn’t that mean that a gynephilic sexual orientation is inherently morally objectionable compared with an androphilic sexual orientation?

I see neither positive nor negative motivations, because:
(1) who knows really why he/she likes or does something?
(2) We have to overcome being judgmental. It is what it is, says love. Neither good nor bad.

There were times when people thought that a man who loves a man was evil (“negative”), and one found easily a lot of (hypothetical) motivations. This has changed, thank God. There is no “motivation”, there only is love (and sometimes sex).

From what motivation comes your judgment? Is your motivation positive or negative?

Please apply your system to your own motivation and behaviour.

The other thing is that the negative connotation of impairments and assistive devices are usualy borne in the minds of able bodied individuals who have a rather poor perception of life with a disability really is like. I say this not as a transabled individual with a poor understanding of life with a disability, but as someone who was married for many years to a paraplegic (and the only reason we’re not together anymore is that she passed away), and as someone who has worked with and made friendship with countless individuals with various disabilities. The consensus in those circles is that an impairment in and of itself is neutral. It only becomes a negative when facing a non-accessible society, whether it be building without ramps, or attitudinal barriers.

Further, many of these people have said that it was “refreshing” to have people attracted to them (in part) because of their disabilities, rather than have people turned off or repulsed by those disabilities. They did not find it degrading at all, but instead found it very good for their self-esteem and their ability to re-learn their sense of self and sexuality.

It’s not ALL about men oppressing women, you know?

That said, the part *I* have a problem with where devotees are concerned is that many of them have a thorough lack of social skills and just don’t know how to behave around real people. This often develops into somewhat stalking behaviours. I don’t think this is an aspect of being a devotee, but rather a reflection of someone who’s not developped social skills, who just happens to also be a devotee.

My 2 cents.

All I can say to this is wow that your mind works in such a way as to fail to see what I and many others find so obvious. The thing that can make any sort of devoteeism objectionable is the reason behind it. I’m sure that others could easily come up with other reasons, but the one that stands out to me as a highly probable motivation for at least some of the sort of devoteeism pertinent to your blog, especially in the case of male devotees and the female/perceived female objects of their devoteeism, is the fact that many societies have sexualized weakness in women (not to mention children, to which grown women are often symbolically reduced), and weak (or weaker than “normal”, at least) is how many people view those using assistive devices.

I am not associating the word “devotee” with any other kind of category.

What I got from this statement was that you were trying to discuss devoteeism itself, apart from any sinister motivations that may drive it, but I think that this effort may have caused you to miss the reason some people consider devoteeism (with regard to disabilities) as creepy by default; namely, that few people can think of any positive (i.e. reality-based, non-degrading, non-objectifying, etc.) possible motivations for it. Assistive devices have nothing but negative connotations to many people, so it’s a bit of a stretch to imagine someone having an attraction to them that isn’t born of some twisted perspective grounded in one or more of those negative connotations (such as the sexualization of weakness I’ve mentioned already). This is in contrast to things like breasts, noses, etc., with regard to which it’s relatively easy to imagine positive, psychologically healthy motivations for the attraction.

~ Chloe

For me, its not just the devices (chair, braces, etc.) alone that attract. A few other qualifiers must be present: the devices must be in use AND ‘enabling’ by/to the wearer. Enabling physically (for the traditional user) or enabling psychologically (where maybe BIID or other factors are present).

I’d agree that self acceptance and devotee acceptance vary directly, as is apparent in your case.

And I say, “all the better”! Makes us both smile. If you at times want to look and feel ‘bracey’ or ‘wheely’…just go for it, Chloe! I won’t stalk! Quite the contrary: I’ll step up and compliment you.

Wheels, leather and steel add to your feminine appeal.

Consider yourself embraced (hugged AND appreciated, too).

/Art

With contact lenses I feel so much more in the world, there is nothing between my eyes and the eyes of others. And things are not made smaller optically.

But at the computer contact lenses are not so good, because one is blinking not often enough, and that makes the eyes dry.

Just do what you feel like, spontaneously. Don’t let yourself be confined to some patterns. (Well, I don’t think you are the person who is confined to patterns…)

Just entirely right.

I have an extremely weak chin (micrognathia due to inflammation in TMJ) and hate it. No one ever disagrees about my chin, but people do say that it’s fine, it’s not ugly, in fact it makes me look cute. I disbelieve them and frankly, I can’t look them in the eye afterwards – either they’re lying to me or they’re really weird.

I’m also incredibly near-sighted, I haven’t been able to do anything without my specs for a good number of years. However, because I’m so used to them, and I buy fun ones, they’re a part of me and actually… girls with specs are very attractive to me. I’d like to have the option of not wearing specs, but I honestly think I’d wear them anyway most of the time.

However… I’m not a devotee per se, but I find disability very attractive. People who use a cane or crutches (somehow it stops at wheelchairs, they’re not bad at all, they’re just not particularly good) are very sexy. And yet, I have spent most of a year trying to get the courage to use a mobility aid myself. (For rheumatoid arthritis.) As you can tell, I’m not BIID.

Very interesting point.

Like you, I’m very near-sighted and I still can’t get over the eyeglass fetish.