#paraphile discourse

[philialov3r]

ᴿᵉᵖᵒʳᵗⁱⁿᵍ ᵖᵉᵒᵖˡᵉ ᵈᵘᵉ ᵗᵒ ᵗʰᵉⁱʳ ᵗᵃˢᵗᵉ ⁱⁿ ᶠⁱᶜᵗⁱᵒⁿ ᵃⁿᵈ/ᵒʳ ᵒᵗʰᵉʳ ᵃᵗᵗʳᵃᶜᵗⁱᵒⁿˢ ᵗʰᵃᵗ ᵗʰᵉʸ ʰᵃᵛᵉ ⁿᵒ ᶜᵒⁿᵗʳᵒˡ ᵒᵛᵉʳ ⁱˢ ᵗᵃᵏⁱⁿᵍ ᵃʷᵃʸ ʳᵉˢᵒᵘʳᶜᵉˢ ᶠʳᵒᵐ ᵖᵉᵒᵖˡᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵃᶜᵗᵘᵃˡˡʸ ⁿᵉᵉᵈ ⁱᵗ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵐᵃᵏⁱⁿᵍ ᵃˡᵒᵗ ᵒᶠ ᵖᵉᵒᵖˡᵉ'ˢ ᵒⁿˡʸ ˢᵃᶠᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵘⁿˢᵃᶠᵉ ᵃⁿᵈ ᵘⁿᵘˢᵃᵇˡᵉ

[hottest-shipper]

I feel like p much all of my opinions abt what other ppl do come down to two main ideals:

Other people know their own experiences infinitely better that I can. If someone says they are something, I believe it and I treat them with respect. If they actually were lying or mocking, well, politely going "okay, I'm happy to use nor/mal pronouns for you" very quickly kills their mood. And if they were genuine, I responded exactly how I should've.

Unless someone is actually harming real people, it's not really any of my business. What they think, what they write, what they believe, doesn't matter unless they're using it as justification to hurt people-- and even then, the issue is the harm, not the thought/belief. (and I do mean harm, not hurt-- if someone is consensually hurting someone else, that's none of my business)

[radqffirmed]

Apparently this needs to be said:

Pro-contact ≠ anti-consent.

Neu-contact ≠ anti-consent.

Hazard consent ≠ anti-consent.

Com-contact ≠ anti-consent.

Limited contact ≠ anti-consent.

(Anything outside of anti-contact) ≠ anti-consent.

Hell - a lot of these may not reflect what an individual actually does. The whole "contact" thing does not imply anywhere that someone is contacting their object/individual of attraction unless that is added.

Anti-consent = anti-consent.

Saying a pro-contact individual (I'm not even that. I identify my stance as hazard consent) wants to non-consensually engage with minors shows your own ignorance, especially because that ask was directed at me: a minor and an AAM.

Can we not spread hate in queer communities? Is that too much to ask? This isn't even a discourse blog. This is supposed to be a positivity blog. Imagine getting mad that someone is being validated in their identity...Doesn't reflect very well on your character.

[trinketkitten]

If you refuse to respect a transage person’s ID age, then you are not only ageist, but transphobic as well.

[the-eternalized-constellation]

Hey retard, pedophile killer back again, if you support pedophilia and dark ships in any way, THAT MAKES YOU A PEDO!!!

I don’t know what your one fucking braincell fighting for 5th place against your fucking ego can’t comprehend in that but hey, at least that gives us an excuse to doxx and curb stop you :)

Don’t be surprised when your address magically ends up somewhere on the internet pedo 🖕

Lmfao I'm crying the pedophile killer.

Also the slur! Get the bingo card!

Dude has no idea what pedophile means and that's true. Pedophilia is a paraphilia, which have been demonized since the beginning. Pedophilia ≠ Child Predation. Obviously, when acted alone, pedophilia is wrong, and very bad, and can very much turn into child predation.

Pedophilia is a sexual desire, and can very much be intrusive thoughts for a person. Some people don't want to be pedophiles, but are stuck with intrusive thoughts. The more you say "kill all pedophiles" you're going to harm innocent people and children. Why? Because you make the innocent ones hide away and not search for help, and they'll either kill themselves, or hurt a child, no longer being innocent. If you let people know what pedophilia truly is, then they can get help, they can cope and recover, and no one gets hurt in the end!

Also, you know dark ships are not always based around pedophilia, right? It's important to me that you know that.

Your threats mean nothing when you're anonymous. 🩷

[0bsess1v3-dracoryf]

As someone with a plethora of paraphilias

What the fuck do you mean recovery?

I'm genuinely baffled that some people think this is something you can recover from, it's just like any other attraction, do you want me to tell you to recover from being gay? As a gay person that makes me sick, so why don't you think it makes us sick when you put "DNI paraphiles unless you're recovering" in your pinned post

What is there to recover from? And don't think this means I'm pro contact, genuinely fuck that shit, but this attraction isn't hurting me so what is there to recover from? Do you think every paraphile is suffering? Some of us are happy the way we are without hurting anyone

I think some of you genuinely need to read the definition of paraphilia, because it's clear you never have.

[skylargoesbark]

What being "pro para" means to me

What being pro para does NOT mean: being pro radqueer What being pro para does NOT mean: being pro contact What being pro para DOES mean: everything below the cut! (parts of this post are copy and pasted from my radqueer post)

Aha, this post will probably get me burned alive. Oh well!!

Trigger warnings for mentions of sexual assault.

First of all, what really is a paraphilia? To quote Oxford Languages, a paraphilia is "a condition characterized by abnormal sexual desires". A paraphilia can be considered "non harmful" (EX: objectophilia/objectum, attraction to objects; fictophilia/fictosexuality, attraction exclusively/primarily to fictional characters), or "harmful". The most well known "harmful" paraphilias are the "Big Three": pedophilia (attraction to minors), necrophilia (attraction to corpses), and zoophilia (attraction to theriform animals). The term "Big Three" is commonly associated with radqueers, but they do have a point that those paraphilias are stigmatized. Being pro para is simply being for the existence of paraphiles without stigmatization. Most who say they are anti para are really anti contact.

What is contact? Whether or not harmful paraphilias should be able to be acted upon (as in, making contact with the object of affection). This mostly boils down to whether or not the object of affection (whether it be a child, a theriform animal, a corpse, or something else) can consent. Anti-contact means one believes the object of affection cannot consent. Complex-contact means one believes that whether or not contact should be allowed depends on the situation. Contact-neutral can mean anything from one not wanting to disclose their real contact stance to not caring. Being pro-contact means one endorses a paraphile with a harmful paraphilia making contact with their object of affection. I am anti-contact.

Most beings I've met who call themselves "anti para" are really anti contact, as I said above. Some will clarify and say "pro non-harmful para, anti harmful para", but this is still not good. As I said in this reblog:

Most harmful paraphiles never commit sexual assault. Saying that every harmful paraphile will commit sexual assault and has no way of controlling themselves whatsoever is like reducing depressed beings to only the numbers of suicide cases and ignoring all other factors. Just "they had depression so they killed themselves". Not how they did it, not the warning signs, not family history, not whether they were in therapy or on medication, not other disorders they had, not talking to anyone who knew them, ONLY that they had depression, so they killed themselves, and that every single being with depression will kill themselves.

Simply having a paraphilia, harmful of not, does not mean you will act on it. Simplifying paraphilia down to sexual assault is an incredibly elementary take. It's almost embarrassing how surface-level and low-research it is, especially since it takes 20 seconds to Google the root cause of pedophilia (most commonly cited as childhood sexual abuse).

To circle back to suicide, did you know that, even with the minimal research done, paraphiles are more likely to attempt to kill themselves? (Secondary source)

What do paras deserve/are entitled to?:

They deserve to get therapy and not be stigmatized within therapy. (Side note: won't name names, but certain beings have been treating paraphilias like something that should only exist within the confines of therapy before disappearing forever.)

They deserve to speak about their experiences online and not be blocked simply *for* being a paraphile, but for the content itself.

Cope however they need to assuming they do not make contact with their object of affection.

So, yeah, I'm pro para because I think paraphiles deserve to live without being stigmatized, but anti contact for harmful paraphiles. That's it. Think before saying you're anti para.

[philtrum]

it’s so hard and weird being pro para and anti transid because you’ll get lumped under “radqueer”

like how tf are “kinksters should be allowed to exist and people with paraphilic disorders should face less stigma so they can get the help they need” and “it’s okay to identify as another race” the same opinion 😭😭😭😭😭

[floortile34]

a corpse is just an object with no sentience attached. the previous owner (now dead) can arbitrate who inherits it, whether for medical research or cannibalism or for gross (to me. not a moral judgement) sex stuff

idk how this is even controversial. is pretty obvious stuff. same logic as any other object

ooh yeh and also expanding on the disgust≠moral judgement, i really hate how those are treated as the same thing. like to me surgery is disgusting, but morally good, while something like racism (despite making me feel other bad feelings) isnt disgusting but is morally bad. and like, many fetishes and such are gross to me but amoral

i deffo wanna give my corpse away when im not using it anymore. dunno where to tho. i feels kinda nice thinking about the idea of getting eaten. i hope i taste good (beyond the skin, which i have eaten)

[suicidophilia]

Im Curious - Imagine this scene : Someone requests a coiner, anonymously, to create a coin - they explain the definition The coiner creates a name for the definition, a flag, and posts it.

[xparalynx]

The thing about Radqueer

I want to share my stance on Radqueer and the topics connected to it.

I believe that any identity that doesn’t cause harm is valid. This differs from the Radqueer stance of “good faith identities.” I don’t think it’s right to hate on Radqueers or transids because I genuinely believe most don’t intend to cause harm, but the reality is that some of the radqueers do with how they comunicate and name certain things and I’d like to explain how.

When it comes to concepts like "transabled," I don’t think feeling a disconnect between how you experience yourself and how you physically are is inherently bad, not at all.

However, the issue lies in labeling these experiences as "trans." People who identify as "transabled" often say they feel like they were supposed to be disabled. This is controversial because it can dismiss or trivialize the struggles disabled people face. I do believe there’s a way to describe and express these feelings without causing harm, but calling it “transabled” is not that way. I also believe that those who call themselves "transabled" experience some kind of struggles and should be supported to feel comfortable in non harmful ways.

Same goes for the concept of "transracial." There is nothing inherent in our identities that ties us to a specific ethnicity. Ethnicity is primarily based on physical characteristics, and when we place too much emphasis on these features, we risk perpetuating harmful stereotypes and racism. While it's important to acknowledge ethnic identities and the concept of race in order to combat racism and address historical inequalities, the idea of "transracial" suggests that ethnicity is a definite and personal identity in the same way that gender identity is. This isn't the case.

It’s absolutely okay to feel a connection to a culture outside of the one you grew up in. It’s also okay to wish you looked different or identify with aspects of a culture that isn't your own. However, these experiences should not be conflated with being "transracial." Being trans is about being a gender different from what you were assigned at birth, whereas ethnicity is tied to ancestral and cultural heritage, which cannot be different in the same way.

Beyond that, calling a feeling of wanting or believing you were meant to be something you are not “trans” is transphobic. Trans people don’t feel like they were “supposed” to be another gender, they ARE that gender. Many transid identities reduce conditions that aren’t social constructs to being solely identity-based, they are not.

I believe it’s fine to feel this kind of disconnection, and even dysphoria, and I don’t think we should police identities. However, it’s crucial to be mindful of how we name, communicate, and express certain identities, especially when they intersect with marginalized experiences.

I do believe that the feelings behind these identities are real. I support these feelings and identities, but I do not support the terms used in radqueer spaces to describe them. They misunderstand and misuse what being transgender is and dismiss the lived experiences of disabled people, racial minorities, and age-based struggles. Language matters, and using "trans-" in these contexts is both harmful and misleading. Being transgender is not about transitioning to something, being meant to be something, or relating to something, it is who you are.

I know that dysphoria can be more than gender dysphoria, I know things like age dysphoria exist and they definately are valid but having dysphoria is not the same as being trans, those are two different things. These feelings are valid, but the words used to describe them should not invalidate or appropriate marginalized identities. There are already alternative terms that avoid harm. For example, "Chronosian" describes the experience some "transage" individuals feel without misusing the term "trans." Finding new, respectful language is possible, and I think it’s an important step forward.

Another topic is being alterhuman or nonhuman. I fully support any alterhuman and nonhuman identities I myself am alterhuman, I know species dysphoria and phantom limbs are real as I do experience them myself. I don't think that alterhumanity itself is LGBTQIA+ but I do believe they belong to pride since I view pride as more than LGBTQIA+ pride but more on that later.

Now about paraphilias. As my username implies and my bio shows I am an anti-abuse paraphilic, I coined the term anti-abuse and it is linked here. Paraphilias are not something a person chooses, and simply having one does not make someone a bad person. However, what truly matters is how a person acts on their paraphilia.

For example, it is a wrong but widely spread stand that all pedophiles are monsters, which isn't true. They did not ask for or choose their attraction, what does matter is how they handle their attraction. It is never okay to engage with children on a sexual level because they don't understand the full meaning and consequences of sexuality plus adults have a certain power over kids which makes that an unhealthy power dynamic, either way: children can't consent. But many people with minor-related paraphilias hate themselves for their attraction, struggling with deep shame, depression, or even suicidal thoughts because on the one side they know that acting on their attraction would cause harm and on the other side society calling them predators and monsters for just having attraction they didn't ask for. I believe that, as a society, we should work on destigmatizing paraphilias themselves while maintaining clear boundaries that acting in ways that cause harm is unacceptable. People cannot control what they are attracted to, but they can control their actions.

Currently, the term "pedophilia" is often used as a catch-all for attraction to minors, but technically, it refers only to prepubescent children. Other terms like Infantophilia (attraction towards babies), Nepiophilia (attraction towards toddlers), hebephilia (attraction to early pubescent minors) and ephebophilia (attraction to mid-to-late adolescents) exist, but there isn't a widely used neutral term to describe all paraphilias related to minors. Because of this, I propose the term "minophilia" (I will maybe make a seperate post about it and if I did I will link it here) as an umbrella term to describe these attractions in a neutral way since the connotations of "MAP" can be seen as wanting to get rid of the paraphilia label or even glorifying attraction towards minors. Rather than doing that Paraphilias should be destigmatised and there should be a lot mor of education, we need to have open, informed discussions about these topics to prevent harm rather than driving people into isolation and self-hatred. Education and support for non-abusive individuals can reduce risks and help ensure that no one is harmed.

Paraphilias should not be included under LGBTQIA+, however they should be recognised as a marginalised group and do belong (under certain conditions) at pride in the same way as kink belongs at pride.

In conclusion, my stance is that we should focus on supporting people with non-harmful identities and attractions, while also making it clear that harmful behaviors, such as abusing or exploiting others, trivializing others struggles or misu´sing certain language in ways that cause harm, are never acceptable. Destigmatizing these topics and creating open, empathetic conversations is essential for promoting education, understanding, and mental well-being. Let’s work together to build a society that addresses these sensitive issues with care and responsibility, while ensuring the safety and dignity of all people. The "Radqueer" movement is not the answer. It is an attempt to talk about real experiences but does so in a way that causes mor harm than good.

I am open to any opinion and I will read all answers. I hope what I wrote is clear and doesn't offend anyone but rather gives a new perspective on how names and actions affect others.

[the-eternalized-constellation]

Antis when a fandom ships two characters that are blood related.... "Proshippers ruin everything!!!"

No, that's a com/darkshipper. What you're seeing is com/darkshippers, not proshippers. Proshippers aren't the ones shipping two brothers... Com/darkshippers are. It doesn't matter if the labels overlap, what you are upset about is com/darkshipping.

Stop confusing the terms.

[qewkdoll]

Do you know how freeing it is to stop being anti like oh my god I was so fucking miserable and for NO REASON

[fleurpuppet]

🌈"selfcest is alright because you cannot do it in real life" (sobbing hysterically) do not remind me !!!

[xxpunkbovidxx]

Why is discrimination against people with paraphilias somehow acceptable??? And istg if somebody says "because they're disgusting and have no self control", I bet you won't stop at pro contact paraphiles, you'll harass anti contact too, because you believe they're no different

[radqffirmed]

everyone or no one. Adult humans aren't superior, I am a minor and I have consented, I am not subhuman to you.

My abuse stems from the way kids are perceived, from people being convinced we can't think for ourselves. If you understand consent you can enact it. You can't pretend to see minors as equal and then turn around and be against their rights, same with animals, our daily neglect runs on the lack of our rights to our own bodily autonomy.

And saying that animals can't consent is the same as acting like someone is stupid for speaking a different language.

This is a positivity blog that runs on exclusion

The way I never said ANY of that, and only politely declined a request for my own comfort...Anon...Buddy.

Adding a whole new layer of ageism onto me is strange considering I was fine to write AAM and MAP positivity. It's not about age. I just don't want to write pro-contact zoophilia positivity PERSONALLY.