From: cbe@unlinfo.unl.edu (cbe)
Subject: Re: sexual attraction and paraphilias
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:31:43 GMT

coren@osf.org (Robert Coren) writes:

>In article <1992Aug14.054548.14755@unlinfo.unl.edu>, cbe@unlinfo.unl.edu (cbe) writes:
>> 
>> My understanding of the situation is that there are fixed preferences 
>> that we all have, that are not at all rational, and that are 
>> immutable.

>I would agree, with the possible exception of the word "immutable" --
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                       
>I think it's perfectly possible for these preferences to change over
>time. If, as I suspect, you mean that they can't be changed by
>conscious effort, I am in full agreement.

My use of  "immutable" was considered.  As I recall from my readings 
in psychology regarding paraphilias, it is accepted that they cannot 
be changed.  However, I hasten to add that I claim, at best, a 
layman's understanding and would welcome elaboration by an expert. 
*If* this immutability is so, then those things which can be changed 
by conscious effort are not paraphilias and are just rather ingrained 
biases.

>> Apparently some have
>> many paraphilias and others, strangely, don't.

>"Strangely"? My point is that the whole set of phenomena is "strange",
>in the sense that I haven't the slightest idea how it comes about. I

Again, my understanding of paraphilias is that the experts aren't 
really sure how they come about either.  Perhaps that is why they 
presently regard them as "immutable" since there is no clear way to 
deal with them.  In the realm psychological, a paucity of quirks 
always seems stranger to me than a rich selection of them.  Most, I 
believe, have an extensive menu of these things a lot of which we 
don't even consider as a paraphilia but just "what we like."

>would hesitate to say that having few paraphilias is "stranger" than
>having many. (In fact, I can hear George's hackles rising at the
>suggestion even from 3,000 miles away.)

>> So it would seem 
>> that trying to debate this issue is futile.

>And, indeed, I don't think any of us are trying to "dispute" it. I'm

Well, I chose the word "debate" because I do not believe it is as 
strongly laden with ideas of conflict as is dispute but carries more 
of the idea of examination of alternative ideas.  I did not mean to 
imply that George and you were having an....um....er...bearfight.  

>trying to explore it. George, if I read him right, is warning against
>making value judgements about people's tastes (especially his! :-)).

Now I'm not sure that a paraphilia can be equated with a taste.  In 
some cases the differentiation is probably useless.  In others, taste 
can be the result of informed judgement and subject to change given 
new information or insight.  As suggested above, the paraphilias do 
not seem to be subject to anything.  If a person's clothing is always 
puce, the walls are painted puce, the car is puce then, aside from being 
ghastly, color choice is also likely a paraphilia (or a disease).  And 
judging this individual's taste in color choice is as meaningless as 
judging their skin color.

What is worth consideration, perhaps, is how to determine what is 
changeable and what is not, how to effect the change, and how to 
evaluate the worth of the exercise in the first place.  I would be 
grateful if one of our learned colleagues in psychology could tell us 
more about paraphilias, especially the sexual ones.

Colburn Eigen                       H|u> = E|u>  

Newsgroups: soc.motss