Feo, Fuerte y Formal

i feel like being turned on by your own body is so agonizingly normal it's so fucked that that one guy made it a whole diagnosis specifically for trans women. and he's not even dead yet

Isn’t that some Narcissus level stuff? Also how is it trans women specific? I’m confused. It just makes me think of the likes of Patrick Bateman or, well, Narcissus.

page 200

and we still haven't cannibalized him!

I’m not saying that isn’t somebody’s kink, but yeah it’s total bs to just assign it to a whole demographic. I still don’t think getting turned on by your own body is normal though. I’ve never heard of it outside of narcissism.

Your reblogs on this post have been grossly transmisogynistic and frankly ableist.

Finding oneself attractive, or being aroused by the idea of yourself being attractive isn't what narcissism is.

Regardless of your opinions of Psychiatry (low, one would hope), narcissism is a "personality disorder" where ones insecurities are expressed through an outward (largely feigned performed) grandiosity and self importance, characterized by seeking attention from others (Psychiatrists throw "lack of empathy for others" in there for spice because they're fucking freaks).

Finding yourself hot, being aroused by the idea of others finding you attractive, or even thinking that someone who looked like you would be attractive to you, are actually very healthy and normal. Cis women put on makeup, wear specific outfits, and engage in specialized grooming routines (and cis men often do the same) to appeal to others, and it's not weird or narcissistic for them to think they're attractive for doing it, and we don't call them "autogynephilic". But when trans feminine people who find other women attractive do it, it's pathologized.

I’m a strong ally of trans people and I mean no disrespect with my words. I even pointed out that what that psychologist said was total BS in the post above! Also no idea where you got ableist from tbh…

I’m just saying there’s a difference between what you’re saying and what OP said. There’s a difference in liking the idea that you are attractive or being turned on by others finding you attractive versus genuinely being turned on by your body alone. There’s nothing wrong with being turned on by your own body I guess, but I would hazard to think it’s the norm.

Using narcissism as a flippant way to say "self absorbed" or otherwise indicate that someone is "wrongly" engaging in self love is the ableism I was referring to. I doubt it was your intention, but it vilifies people with a psychiatric diagnosis (which, again, I don't feel is a wholly respectable practice to begin with, but regardless), and diminishes the seriousness of their experiences by making it seem trivial or frivolous.

I'm glad that you don't agree with Blanchard, kudos. But what I said and what PDB said are not materially different. Being aroused by your own body can be part of finding yourself attractive, or simply part of your own sexual arousal. It's not pathological to find aspects of your own body appealing, and it's not something that's exclusive to trans people. Furthermore, as PDB's poll shows (and it's worth acknowledging that it's not a representative sample, it's just people who found this post on tumblr), there's a pretty even split between people who have and have not had the experience they described "have you ever been turned on by your own body".

The point is not "everyone must have this experience", it's that calling this experience "some Narcissus level stuff" is rude, transphobic, ableist, and wrong, even if it wasn't normative, but it is a fairly common feeling. It's great that you think it's bullshit for Blanchard to ascribe "self arousal" or "autogynephilia" to trans women, but the issue isn't that nobody feels this way, it's that a common experience is being pathologized when expressed by trans women, and pretending that nobody feels it, or that it's a fringe experience just reinforces and retrenches the pseudo psychology of freaks like Blanchard.

But neither of us really knows. The fact that a poll now being shared amongst like-minded people in the reblog of this post is about 50-50 shows that it’s probably much smaller outside that group.

Also, on the ableist part, I get what you’re saying but I don’t think it’s inherently bad to say that certain psychological issues are wrong. Living with such issues is often reminding yourself that. Like, I have depression, a bit of anxiety and some annoying paranoia that I control with medication. I wouldn’t say it’s ableist to consider those things wrong, because they are. When I was worried about a family member coming in my room to kill me, because of my paranoia, that was stupid and wrong. Now, I don’t think autogyneophilia is inherently bad depending on how the person wants to live, but I also don’t think it’s helpful to present such things as normal, when they likely aren’t. I mean, depression is very common these days but I still don’t consider that normal. Even if it affected most of the population, I wouldn’t, simply because it’s not a healthy state of the mind. Bad comparison really, but I mainly chose it because of how common it seems to be these days.

Like I said before though, if you turn yourself on then it’s fine. Human sexuality is this crazy thing we still don’t really understand and I’d say that’s one that’s not really harmful, so long as the person is fine with it.

God you're fucking insufferable.

"Neither of us really knows", so neither of us knows either way, dumb ass. You don't have anything to indicate it's "probably much smaller outside that group", so why the fuck would you assume so, other than your own biases.

I literally didn't say "it's wrong to say psychological issues are inherently bad", but that's is fucking wrong. I said it's wrong to conflate a psychiatric diagnosis with something it literally isn't, and to pathologize that non-diagnosis, non-issue for a psychiatric diagnosis. I also said that it's wrong to trivialize that diagnosis by using it as a catchall of things you think it applies to but doesn't, and your response is "but it's bad though!" Not only is that not how psychiatry or psychology are done, but vilifying psychiatric conditions only does harm to those who have been diagnosed by ostracizing and alienating them. I don't give a fuck if you have depression, anxiety, and paranoia, or if you think those conditions are "bad". They negatively impact your life (otherwise they would not be diagnosed), and it's more useful to talk about that than it is to say "they're bad" in this vague, inane way.

Autogynephilia doesn't exist. It was a category of transgender woman proposed by "psychologist" Ray Blanchard who harassed and stalked trans women to "prove" that trans women who find women attractive are just ugly failed men who get off on imagining themselves as women. It's made up transmisogynistic bullshit. It is helpful to present self-generated arousal as normal because it is common to all genders not just trans women, harmless, and not rare. This is contrary to Blanchard's typology of trans women. And you're right, depression is a bad fucking comparison, so why did you make it?

Auto-arousal isn't "a crazy thing", and we actually understand a great deal about sex, sexuality, and gender. Just because you don't, doesn't mean it's a mystery that nobody else understands or studies.

For a "strong ally of trans people" (interesting that you said "trans people", not trans women, when this conversation has been specifically about trans women) you sure do seem to have a lot of "it's fine to be a freak" views about us, and about this subject. Your immediate response to a transfeminine person saying "i feel like being turned on by your own body is so agonizingly normal it's so fucked that that one guy made it a whole diagnosis specifically for trans women. and he's not even dead yet" was "that's Narcissus shit", like come on. You immediately compared them to a famously self-obsessed mythological Greek man, and you've repeatedly doubled down on othering and pathologizing their statement while "nuh uh"ing me over and over without a shred of basis other than "seems fuckin' weird to me."

You came to me trying to start a fight and now you’re just cherry picking because I said trans people instead of trans women before… I love trans women and will always stand by trans women.

I’d never heard the term “autogyneophylic” someone just said that was a more accurate term for it instead of narcissism. I guess the more correct term based on my research (i.e. looking up a few websites…) is autosexuality, which I guess is a thing.

That would have been the easiest way to explain it to me. Saved a lot of trouble and arguing lol. I mean, I still don’t “get” it but that’s the way for most sexualities we don’t have ourselves.

Also, in my defense, “person falling in love with themselves” is literally the story of Narcissus, so I don’t think it’s wild that it was my first thought.

No, I am not confusing "attracted to oneself" and "being turned on by"; I'm saying attraction as a blanket that includes arousal because I don't see a reason why they should be separate in this instance. If speaking hypothetically, I could find a way to get myself aroused over my own body. It wouldn't be something that came naturally to me, sure, but I could easily get myself into that headspace, and I can understand why it would be a turn-on. To me, it's that simple; it's an experience that turns some people on, and it doesn't have to be more complicated than that. Whatever might *influence* one to be sexually attracted to their own body is irrelevant.

No, the influence behind it matters. That’s why we have terms like demisexual. You could easily chalk up a demisexual male who eventually is attracted to another man as being gay, but that’s only part of the picture. It was the close bonds that eventually led to them being attracted to the other man and there’s nothing that necessarily indicates that they couldn’t also become attracted to women the same way.

Sexuality can be as simple as person a likes person b, but there is often a lot of other aspects to it that matter as well.

i feel like being turned on by your own body is so agonizingly normal it's so fucked that that one guy made it a whole diagnosis specifically for trans women. and he's not even dead yet

Isn’t that some Narcissus level stuff? Also how is it trans women specific? I’m confused. It just makes me think of the likes of Patrick Bateman or, well, Narcissus.

page 200

and we still haven't cannibalized him!

I’m not saying that isn’t somebody’s kink, but yeah it’s total bs to just assign it to a whole demographic. I still don’t think getting turned on by your own body is normal though. I’ve never heard of it outside of narcissism.

Your reblogs on this post have been grossly transmisogynistic and frankly ableist.

Finding oneself attractive, or being aroused by the idea of yourself being attractive isn't what narcissism is.

Regardless of your opinions of Psychiatry (low, one would hope), narcissism is a "personality disorder" where ones insecurities are expressed through an outward (largely feigned performed) grandiosity and self importance, characterized by seeking attention from others (Psychiatrists throw "lack of empathy for others" in there for spice because they're fucking freaks).

Finding yourself hot, being aroused by the idea of others finding you attractive, or even thinking that someone who looked like you would be attractive to you, are actually very healthy and normal. Cis women put on makeup, wear specific outfits, and engage in specialized grooming routines (and cis men often do the same) to appeal to others, and it's not weird or narcissistic for them to think they're attractive for doing it, and we don't call them "autogynephilic". But when trans feminine people who find other women attractive do it, it's pathologized.

I’m a strong ally of trans people and I mean no disrespect with my words. I even pointed out that what that psychologist said was total BS in the post above! Also no idea where you got ableist from tbh…

I’m just saying there’s a difference between what you’re saying and what OP said. There’s a difference in liking the idea that you are attractive or being turned on by others finding you attractive versus genuinely being turned on by your body alone. There’s nothing wrong with being turned on by your own body I guess, but I would hazard to think it’s the norm.

Using narcissism as a flippant way to say "self absorbed" or otherwise indicate that someone is "wrongly" engaging in self love is the ableism I was referring to. I doubt it was your intention, but it vilifies people with a psychiatric diagnosis (which, again, I don't feel is a wholly respectable practice to begin with, but regardless), and diminishes the seriousness of their experiences by making it seem trivial or frivolous.

I'm glad that you don't agree with Blanchard, kudos. But what I said and what PDB said are not materially different. Being aroused by your own body can be part of finding yourself attractive, or simply part of your own sexual arousal. It's not pathological to find aspects of your own body appealing, and it's not something that's exclusive to trans people. Furthermore, as PDB's poll shows (and it's worth acknowledging that it's not a representative sample, it's just people who found this post on tumblr), there's a pretty even split between people who have and have not had the experience they described "have you ever been turned on by your own body".

The point is not "everyone must have this experience", it's that calling this experience "some Narcissus level stuff" is rude, transphobic, ableist, and wrong, even if it wasn't normative, but it is a fairly common feeling. It's great that you think it's bullshit for Blanchard to ascribe "self arousal" or "autogynephilia" to trans women, but the issue isn't that nobody feels this way, it's that a common experience is being pathologized when expressed by trans women, and pretending that nobody feels it, or that it's a fringe experience just reinforces and retrenches the pseudo psychology of freaks like Blanchard.

But neither of us really knows. The fact that a poll now being shared amongst like-minded people in the reblog of this post is about 50-50 shows that it’s probably much smaller outside that group.

Also, on the ableist part, I get what you’re saying but I don’t think it’s inherently bad to say that certain psychological issues are wrong. Living with such issues is often reminding yourself that. Like, I have depression, a bit of anxiety and some annoying paranoia that I control with medication. I wouldn’t say it’s ableist to consider those things wrong, because they are. When I was worried about a family member coming in my room to kill me, because of my paranoia, that was stupid and wrong. Now, I don’t think autogyneophilia is inherently bad depending on how the person wants to live, but I also don’t think it’s helpful to present such things as normal, when they likely aren’t. I mean, depression is very common these days but I still don’t consider that normal. Even if it affected most of the population, I wouldn’t, simply because it’s not a healthy state of the mind. Bad comparison really, but I mainly chose it because of how common it seems to be these days.

Like I said before though, if you turn yourself on then it’s fine. Human sexuality is this crazy thing we still don’t really understand and I’d say that’s one that’s not really harmful, so long as the person is fine with it.

i feel like being turned on by your own body is so agonizingly normal it's so fucked that that one guy made it a whole diagnosis specifically for trans women. and he's not even dead yet

Isn’t that some Narcissus level stuff? Also how is it trans women specific? I’m confused. It just makes me think of the likes of Patrick Bateman or, well, Narcissus.

page 200

and we still haven't cannibalized him!

I’m not saying that isn’t somebody’s kink, but yeah it’s total bs to just assign it to a whole demographic. I still don’t think getting turned on by your own body is normal though. I’ve never heard of it outside of narcissism.

Your reblogs on this post have been grossly transmisogynistic and frankly ableist.

Finding oneself attractive, or being aroused by the idea of yourself being attractive isn't what narcissism is.

Regardless of your opinions of Psychiatry (low, one would hope), narcissism is a "personality disorder" where ones insecurities are expressed through an outward (largely feigned performed) grandiosity and self importance, characterized by seeking attention from others (Psychiatrists throw "lack of empathy for others" in there for spice because they're fucking freaks).

Finding yourself hot, being aroused by the idea of others finding you attractive, or even thinking that someone who looked like you would be attractive to you, are actually very healthy and normal. Cis women put on makeup, wear specific outfits, and engage in specialized grooming routines (and cis men often do the same) to appeal to others, and it's not weird or narcissistic for them to think they're attractive for doing it, and we don't call them "autogynephilic". But when trans feminine people who find other women attractive do it, it's pathologized.

I’m a strong ally of trans people and I mean no disrespect with my words. I even pointed out that what that psychologist said was total BS in the post above! Also no idea where you got ableist from tbh…

I’m just saying there’s a difference between what you’re saying and what OP said. There’s a difference in liking the idea that you are attractive or being turned on by others finding you attractive versus genuinely being turned on by your body alone. There’s nothing wrong with being turned on by your own body I guess, but I would hazard to think it’s the norm.

oneheadtoanother

artemissoftstepper

need a bad sleep reset

this is a very delicate operation which involves not falling asleep until the late enough tomorrow that i can get a normal nights sleep

voxelfoxkae