Sexual Orientation Models
Submitted by J on February 17 2002 21:26:53
In reply to Analogies and paraphilias submitted by Heather on February 16 2002 13:30:31
|
Dear Heather, I hope you don’t mind if I split my response into two separate threads – one about pederasty in the New Testament, the second dealing with the material in your post ‘Analogies and Paraphilias’. I have a great deal I would like to discuss about the first issue, but if you would permit me the time to read through all of the links you provided to numerous essays on the topic before responding, that would be great. Briefly, however, I found your three summary points bringing the topic into relation with contemporary boylove well stated and I agree with the points you were making in each of them. As it regards the second issue, let’s start by defining our terms. An analogy, as it relates to what we are discussing, is defined as (1) inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others; or (2) resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike. A parallel, as it similarly relates, is defined as (1) similar, analogous, or interdependent in tendency or development; or (2) having identical syntactical elements in corresponding positions. When I used the term ‘parallel’, I was assuming that it was being employed in an analogous way (see definition #1), and my problems with it still stand; but thank you for clarifying both your position and helping me to clarify mine with you as to my use of ‘parallel’. I believe we were already on the same wavelength, just using different terms. While there is a great deal in your post that I would like to respond to, I think we should concentrate on one or two key issues and branch out from there as necessary. So I think the best place to start is not on the fact I or anyone else takes offence to this or that analogy, but on the integrity of the analogy itself, which is based on treating a desire to rape as a sexual orientation. I had stated: You seem to be falsely equating orientation (which is to whom someone is attracted) with how one expresses those feelings (lovingly, engaging in s&m, rape). To this you replied: I’m afraid we’re in disagreement on this… some people’s primary orientation is toward types of activities rather than types of people. If I may, allow me to draw up two small charts (the first using a man as our point of reference) that will hopefully help to explain my position. Sexual Orientations (To Whom) 1. Heterosexual with adult (woman) 2. Heterosexual with child (girl) 3. Homosexual with adult (man) 4. Homosexual with child (boy) Sexual Expressions (How) These are so numerous (literally in the hundreds) that I can’t even begin to list them out similar to the above chart, but in general things such as all known sexual unions (intercourse, felatio, masturbation) as well as the ‘paraphilias’, such as coprophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, masochism, necrophilia, sadism, voyeurism. You are postulating that the things in the second ‘chart’ are orientations in and of themselves – a position that I seriously challenge. I believe that every person’s particular sexual activity involves one (or more) orientation with one (or more) sexual expression. Orientations can often be fluid – while I can’t personally relate since I am exclusively #4 – this is nonetheless the case. So, for example, when you state that ‘there are child-lovers for whom gender is irrelevant’, it is not that gender is irrelevant, but that they are attracted to both genders. All of the expressions in the second ‘chart’ operate within a broader context of orientation or in some instances, multiple orientations. I would be interested in a more detailed explanation and defense of your own sexual orientation model, as well as any refutation of my model that you can give. J |
Follow ups: