Fetishes and Autogynephilia

[Alonelonelylonersbadidea]

I just thought it was worthwhile having a talk about this and we should try not to make 'sweeping negative generalisations', so in the spirit of positivity about fetishes generally, I don't actually have an issue with them if they don't impinge on anyone else. In fact I probably have fetishes of my own. Probably ones which don't fit with my feminist principles. Will maybe come back to that later.
What is the official feminist line on fetishes such as autogynephilia in terms of 'gender'? Is it possible to be 'each to their own' without being negative about cross dressers?

@MsFenellaFielding so you know the point I'm making. Sorry you experienced what I did

I have experience of colleagues with AGP in work environments where I have few or no female colleagues. In most cases I have found the colleagues with AGP behaviour towards me a very ‘uncomfortable experience’ and have changed work patterns and jobs to avoid them.

I do not believe TWAW

@ClaraMumsnet

The thread that was deleted contained numerous posts that broke our talk guidelines, including the OP. Please keep this one within the guidelines, thanks, and avoid it becoming a TAAT.

I don't know what TAAT stands for.

#nothankyou

I honestly wouldn't wish it on any woman and I'm sure @MsFenellaFielding would agree. However, I'm more and more convinced that women who haven't experienced/witnessed this behaviour are not well placed to be the arbiter.
I'm reticent to call out these women as 'dick panderers and handmaidens' as I think they JUST DON'T GET IT

TAAT is thread about a thread. It's a warning to stick to the topic of the thread and not make it a discussion about the deleted threads.

@SmokedDuck I agree

Given that cross dressing is a) a recognised paraphilia b) included in Stonewall's definition of transgender c) listed as a recognised transgender characteristic in submissions to both UK and Scottish Government by government funded charities, as a subject it should not be subject to deletion.

MrsFenellaFielding

@OldCrone

TAAT is thread about a thread. It's a warning to stick to the topic of the thread and not make it a discussion about the deleted threads.

Thank you for the explanation.

@MiladyBerserko so it would seem. Perhaps a more pertinent question would be (for Lib Fems and SNP Policy makers) is "Ever witnessed a cross dresser spend 500 quid online on tights and knickers during a 24 hour sissy porn fest"?

I cannot think of another sexual fetish that a person would carry with them everywhere, every day. Into the streets, into their workplaces, on public transport, anywhere.

Crossdressing is now accepted under the trans umbrella even though AGP crossdressing is about fetish not identity.

Is there anything else a person would do for sexual thrills/satisfaction that would be acceptable to bring to the workplace?

Of course we're in a position where it's impossible to determine a man's reasons for dressing in traditionally female clothing. And I don't want to police what people wear. But a PP mentioned working with AGP males and changing her working pattern because of it. She felt uncomfortable. I don't know of anything else that would be permitted in a place of work like this.

I honestly don't know about whether cross-dressers really fit under trans, though I do know I am a bit bothered by people who find pics of a trans woman, usually in the early days of her identifying as such, at a fetish event or on a fetish website in 'sexy' clothes and then go 'Huh, well that proves he's just AGP man with a fetish'.

I find that a bit unfair as the fetish scene is often a safe space for trans women to explore their identity and yes, it may be a rather 'male gaze' interpretation of femininity in the early days because that will be an easy starting point, and also fits in with the scene - doesn't mean someone is 'just a fetishist'

Previous thread OP Sunkisses wrote:
'BBC Open Door programme 45 years ago on transsexuals - a real jaw dropper
I did a search of Mumsnet and couldn't see any other posts about this extraordinary 1973 discussion show which was produced by transsexuals 45 years ago where they were given free-reign, free from editorial control. Four transsexuals are joined by a psychologist and an MP.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06c83f4/player

Where to start? Maybe with the show's producer and host, Della Aleksander, who is the most bizarre of all the participants. Della starts by claiming that a "chastened and wiser" Adolf Hitler and Queen Victoria have said, through a medium, that "there was a special role for me, in the reconstruction following a world wide collapse in 1978-79". Della also claims to have been sent from another world where the sexes don't exist and that transsexuals are the only model of a "higher race"! Della also claims to have founded the neo-Nazi sounding European National Movement in South Africa whilst serving in the Army there (I couldn't find any info on them, but they sound well dodgy to me).

Della also seems utterly confused, mis-using the terms 'bisexual' and 'intersex', and appearing to think these words mean transsexual, and that the appearance of nipples on a man means 'we are all transsexuals'. Della is, thankfully, corrected by the psychologist at 33.53 mins in who states that it is important to use the correct terminology, but Della wafts such trivialities away by saying "I don't want to get bogged down in medical questions". The MP, Leo Abse, argues against the 'trans umbrella' (before this term was invented by Stonewall etc) at 36 mins in.

There is clear evidence of autogynephilia (AGP - the sexual fetish of a man loving himself as a woman) at 33.23 when Della says the "sex act" is a "transsexual one", as "one attempts to become and absorb the beloved".

At 26 mins in one of the speakers, Rachel Bowen (the working class northern transsexual with dark hair), says that having a female birth certificate is a "status symbol". Another of the transsexuals, Laura Pralet, at 27 mins preposterously claims that "we are not a minority", and "I have never been a homosexual", even though Laura lives with and has married a man. Laura also says their husband is never happier when they are "in the kitchen", and at 31 mins in says they wanted to become a woman as "women have the best deal anyway".

It's absolutely fascinating and well worth a watch."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3327193-BBC-Open-Door-programme-45-years-ago-on-transsexuals-a-real-jaw-dropper

@ChewtonRoad Those of us who have experienced this, get this. My point, which was deleted and a version of which is lost, upthread, it that surely, these women who defer surely have no experience of this behaviour?

@GromblesofGrimbledon well, we don't let adult baby fetishists hang around crèches, do we? We don't allow Golden Shower types to urinate with an audience in public places?

[quote Illaria]@GromblesofGrimbledon well, we don't let adult baby fetishists hang around crèches, do we? We don't allow Golden Shower types to urinate with an audience in public places? [/quote]

Trying my damndest not to be get deleted but, yes, this is the point I'm making.

There is a push now to have sexual fetish and kink recognised as "identity" in general. So people online will list their various fetishes alongside their pronouns and "kink shaming" is an accusation hurled at anyone who thinks these things should remain private and not displayed at say, a gay pride parade.

I never thought much about it until I saw that awful Guardian columnist (can't remember his name) who started out talking about dressing in women's underwear but is now, apparently transitioning.

He (I'm not "mis-gendering" as he was a he at the time, and still writes under his "male" name) wrote an entire article about buying lingerie, including a description about how much he enjoyed asking young shop assistants for help. So a non-consensual fetish, practiced in public, was feted by a mainstream newspaper.

No thank you.

It may be useful to consider terms as 'fetish and kink' are moved closer to 'quirk and preference'.

"Paraphilic disorders are recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors that are distressing or disabling and that involve inanimate objects, children or nonconsenting adults, or suffering or humiliation of oneself or the partner with the potential to cause harm.

Paraphilias involve sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, and/or targets (eg, children, corpses, animals). However, some sexual activities that seem unusual to another person or a health care practitioner do not constitute a paraphilic disorder simply because they are unusual. People may have paraphilic interests but not meet the criteria for a paraphilic disorder.

The unconventional sexual arousal patterns in paraphilias are considered pathologic disorders only when both of the following apply:

They are intense and persistent.
They cause significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning, or they harm or have the potential to harm others (eg, children, nonconsenting adults).
People with a paraphilic disorder may have an impaired or a nonexistent capacity for affectionate, reciprocal emotional and sexual intimacy with a consenting partner. Other aspects of personal and emotional adjustment may be impaired as well.

www.msdmanuals.com/en-gb/professional/psychiatric-disorders/paraphilic-disorders/overview-of-paraphilic-disorders

I find that a bit unfair as the fetish scene is often a safe space for trans women to explore their identity and yes, it may be a rather 'male gaze' interpretation of femininity in the early days because that will be an easy starting point, and also fits in with the scene - doesn't mean someone is 'just a fetishist'

I think what you think about this phenomenon rather depends on whether one buys into the whole ideology.

@SmokedDuck

Oops - posted too soon. When we consider that fetish, by definition, tends to mean that a person often will not be able to have a very satisfying "normal" sex life, I think it becomes questionable that it isn't harmful, at least to the person involved.

Real fetishes largely seem to occur outside of the control of the individual, but I can't help but think that by normalising them, and also by exposing young people to more sexual material at young ages, or weird/unusual sexual images, we make that more likely to develop.

Yes indeed - in psychosexual terms it's tended to be understood that the fetish is a kind of dead end of sexuality (Freud of course termed it as a perversion, but importantly for him 'perversion' without quite the usual pejorative sense).

It's where the psychosexual drive has become diverted into something (usually an object, but can be an idea or scenario) which takes the place of a fully developed sexuality and actually prevents the person from achieving a "normal" fulfilling sexual life.

In the classic fetishes like women's shoes, body parts, rubber etc., the or an object replaces a person as the target of sexual desire. So in itself it is a reductive and dehumanising form of sexuality, because it's focused on object and objectifying for the sole pleasure of the subject; and not a relationship between two fully-realised, loving, independent subjects. Just in that, the fetish is absolutely ripe for exploitation by porn, which turns people into objects for sexual voyeurism and consumption in the same way, and blocks experiencing sex as an equal, reciprocal experience and exchange with someone else who is NOT an object.

Since women have been objectified as objects for men's sexual pleasure for millennia, we might have a special interest in the harms that specific forms of sexuality that focus on objectification and voyeurism can do to us.

On fetishes, there are some curious ones. Look up 'objectum sexuality' for instance, where people literally form sexual attachments to specific objects - but not the usual fetish kind: think rollercoasters or statues - and sometimes believe themselves to be in love relationships with the objects and conduct symbolic "marriages".

But yes, one of the issues is the desire to turn fetishes and paraphilias into "identities" and hence claim for them the same kinds of rights and protections that LGB people fought for for homosexuality. I'm extremely not a fan of the trend in "rainbow" culture to adopt "kink" as sexualities and identities: precisely because they are very different to sexual orientation, but the elision of the two serves to normalise all sorts of things that are harmful to women and children, including porn, blurred consent and age boundaries and so on.

Welcome to Pride.