From: cbe@unlinfo.unl.edu (cbe)
Subject: Re: sexual attraction and paraphilias
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:44:00 GMT

jakec@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:

>cbe@unlinfo.unl.edu (cbe):
>> 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 think there is a separation that needs to be drawn.  there is
>a type that catches your eye when they walk past, a type that
>you find inherently sexy in the sense that you want to drop your
>pants and fuck or be fucked senselessly.  however, there's also a
>much different kind of type that's more sensual with
>characteristics that are harder to define and need to be discovered.

>while i recognize that a beautiful body usually catches my eye, it
>usually takes much more, usually seemingly much less, to actually
>turn me on.  for me, a person can exude sexiness independent of
>their body type.  i'm discovering that self-confidence, intelligence,
>sensitivity, and communication are much more sexy -- especially when
>you get them in bed.

>these kind of qualities don't grab you as the person walks past.
>usually, one needs to talk to the person first, and here's where
>the separation between physical attractiveness and sensual
>attractiveness comes into play.  there are times when a physically
>attractive person catches your eye and after a little talk, he's
>sensually attractive as well, but there are other times when you
>discover that someone is physically attractive only *after*
>discovering that they're sensually attractive.

>many, many more men are catching my eye these days for different
>reasons.  some just look self-confident, relaxed, at ease with
>themselves.  some are just physically beautiful, matching my
>"ideal" physical type.  while i'll grant that they share a
>certain physical attractiveness, they don't share a common type.

What you narrate I would think would be similar for many who are 
not overwhelmed by the compulsions dictated by paraphilias.  Certainly
it encompasses my experience.  However, it seems for most that 
the arena for observation of purely physical attributes is more 
accessible and, I suspect, more determinative.

As I understand it, one may have a constellation of paraphilias which 
need not be exclusive.  Now, whether any of the behaviors you describe
would result from a paraphilia would, I think, be difficult to assess 
without guidance from the proverbial "professional."  What you 
describe could well be a question of taste in the sense of that 
quality being mutable due to experience or thought.  If so, then my 
suggestion of consideration of paraphilias would be inapplicable.  If 
not, which was the point of my previous post, then... 
>> we follow the method of
>> the twink talking to Nick on the stairway in the film "Parting 
>> Glances": "I look at my dick, and it tells me what it likes." [or 
>> words to that effect]

>darling, a look at the *entire* film would behoove you.

Honey, there is perhaps no film I have seen more.  A particular 
snippit selected to illustrate a specific point should not be 
extrapolated to represent my viewpoint.  All I have attempted to do
is point out that psychology seems to have defined a large variety of 
behaviors which, although largely harmless, appear to be innate, 
irrational and immutable.  I selected the twink to illustrate one 
driven by his paraphilias and, thereby, all of us when also compelled 
by them.  I regret ever so much that the writing and context were so 
very unclear.  Your solicitude regarding my cinematic experience is 
deeply appreciated for its appropriateness and sense of necessity.


   

Colburn Eigen                  H|u> = E|u>

"There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn." Albert Camus
Newsgroups: soc.motss