Atticus ☂️

all attraction is mortally neutral.

being a paraphile is morally neutral.

mortality comes into the question when you act upon your attraction- whatever it may be, paraphilic or not.

mortality comes into the question when you act upon your attraction in a way that revokes the other party from having a say in if they want to be apart of that action or not.

this goes for nonparaphilic attractions as much as it does paraphilic ones.

its endlessly infuriating and saddening to see people absolutely tear apart paraphiles, especially those of the big 3, for simply being attracted to whatever they are attracted to.

people need to stop assuming that because you're into something means that you will instantly act on it, especially without consent of another.

people need to stop assuming- period.

im a paraphile, not a flight risk, but that never seems to matter to people, because apparently having kinks and paras makes me instantly the most dangerous person ever, even if i could never and will never act on my paras, let alone my kinks.

Oh thank you dear! Of course I’ll stand up for a community I’m a part of!! Especially one with so much hatred towards it,, sexuality is a beautiful thing and no one deserves to feel guilt for fantasies !! As long as people don’t go and cause true harm, why should we give a crap what people find hot? It’s frankly really stupid

They blocked me, so I couldn't respond, so I'll respond here!

Pedophilia only becomes disordered when it's causing problems.

If a pedophile offends, they have pedophilic disorder.

If a pedophile experiences distress because of their attraction, they have pedophilic disorder.

If a pedophile's attraction isn't causing any problems, if they have no toxic shame and never offend, then they aren't disordered and therefore do not have pedophilic disorder.

Attraction just means an action evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something. So yes, it is an attraction, very much in the same way that gay men are attracted to other men. In the same way that foot fetishists are attracted to feet.

Like I’m the latter I literally have no urge to actually start engaging sexually with a kid, and at that, ANYBODY right now. I have never wanted to have sex with a young kid, as a young kid and now that I’m a teenager, and in the future when I’m an adult.

But we ought to move on to 102 at some point, right? This isn't even simply about paraphilias but about the larger discussion on sexual abuse: 'the harm they cause' is a reductive and inaccurate view that continues to perpetuate the idea that sexual abuse is caused by sexual desire.

That there is a wrong type of 'horniness' that makes people violate the autonomy of others, and therefore people who are oriented towards being 'turned on' by the wrong things are always implicitly more at risk than the people with 'normal' orientations: that we speak of paraphiliacs in terms of 'control' and 'avoidance', as if they were reactive dogs that need to be muzzled.

This view simply does not hold up when we compare it to other sexualities (and I think this is sort of another fundamental issue involved: people think that paraphilias are somehow morally 'distinct' from sexualities and thus speak of them in different terms and standards).

A man who sexually abuses a woman didn't abuse her because of his heterosexuality. A man who sexually abuses another man didn't abuse him because of his homosexuality. What you are attracted to is neither prerequisite for nor predictive of abuse, because abuse rests on factors like power dynamics, dehumanisation and the ability to get away with it first and foremost.

It is very surprising to me still that people who seem to recognise that abuse isn't about 'the victim was so hot that I couldn't resist' and that there are larger interpersonal and systemic factors at play still often speak of paraphiliacs in these terms (something to be controlled, something that causes 'urges', something that, even it doesn't 'make' you abusive puts you at risk of it). To me, it tends to reveal two things:

The first is, like I mentioned above, these people think there is a fundamental difference between 'sexuality' and 'paraphilia' in terms that are underlined by respectability politics. And I say this as somebody who doesn't actually consider being a paraphiliac as quite 'the same' as being queer/etc. (there are other sociopolitical differences that make me think this), but when you see the people who make these distinctions explain themselves:

'Liking the same gender is normal, liking [x] is not' 'Homosexuality isn't a mental illness though, I have nothing against the mentally ill but a paraphilia is a mental illness' 'Being queer doesn't give me urges to hurt people unlike a paraphilia' 'You don't need to "recover" from being gay, that's conversion therapy and it's also impossible! However I support paraphiles who are seeking help for their attraction!'

... the message becomes quite clear: people believe that there are identity markers that are inherently indicative of morality. That a paraphilia has to be distinguished from a sexual orientation because a sexual orientation is never a reason why a bad person is bad, but a paraphilia could be.

And the second, which I find more fundamental, is that these people don't talk to paraphiliacs. They 'want' to be activists so they will 'support paraphiliacs seeking recovery, don't bully them, don't threaten them!' but they will put paraphiliacs on their DNI as their personal boundary, 'for my own comfort.'

Look, I'm not here to tell people to interact or not interact with whoever, frankly it's none of my business. But I do think you need to consider what exactly you're trying to do when you say you want to advocate for a group you refuse to even talk to. Do you think you sound different from those people who say 'I don't care if you're gay, just don't be doing that in front of me'? If you won't talk to paraphiliacs, your idea of how paraphiliacs live come from stereotypes, call-out posts, and hyperpathologised psychiatric description, even if you think you're reading those posts in a Non-Judgemental Critical Thinking Immune-to-Propaganda Way.

it seems like some people are really bad at practicing what the preach. you can't claim to not believe in thought crimes and then also act like certain thoughts make you more of a danger to others. there's no science backing it up either that i have seen. any study that implies anything of the sort was done in a clinical or criminal setting which of course will have more offending 🍸s.

ironically, this attitude actually prevents some people from receiving the care they need because therapists are also likely to hyperfocus on preventing offenses when maybe someone just needs help coping with the stigma.

I almost never seek out any kind of dark ships, I like fluff, wholesome stuff (usually, I have my angsty days)

but I still consider myself a proshipper

why?

because I think OTHER ppl should be allowed to read and write what they wanna

just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean that no one else can!

I don’t like tomatoes, but I don’t wanna stop other ppl from enjoying tomatoes

👉 There's nothing wrong in writing or drawing media blatantly portraying sexuality.

👉 Creating art simply for kink or self-pleasure doesn't make the fiction any less valid or "less off".

👉 You don't need to constantly pair kink with other more "refined themes" to make it "acceptable" in your writing/drawing.

👉 "PWP", aka "Porn Without Plot" or "Plot? What Plot?", is still just as valid as other types of writing.

👉 To think that only "safe" and "unproblematic" kinks are allowed to be written or drawn is extremely kink negative and conservative.

👉 Taboo kinks and paraphilias should have the right to be explored in fiction the same way that "non-problematic" kinks are. Yes, even if it's only for self-pleasure.

Pedophilia and a pedophilic disorder are not the same thing. Voyeurism and a voyeuristic disorder are not the same thing. So on and so forth.

A common misconception I see (oftentimes from well-meaning individuals) is that paraphilic disorders and paraphilias are one and the same. But in reality, the DSM-V has long made a clear distinction between the two.

According to the DSM-V, a paraphilia is simply an atypical attraction (Though what counts as "atypical" has evolved with time, and attractions that were considered atypical in the past are actually quite common and socially accepted today. Take mazophilia -the attraction to breasts- as an example). Paraphilias in themselves are not classified as disorders, and not everyone that has a paraphilia is considered disordered.

A paraphilic disorder is a diagnosable condition in which one's paraphilia causes personal distress/dysfunction in one's life, or results in the harm/risk of harm to another being. Someone with a paraphilic disorder may need some extra help in order to relieve this distress or prevent any harm from being done to others. Now this doesn't mean that people with paraphilic disorders are less deserving of kindness, compassion, and autonomy. They deserve the same respect and common decency as anyone else does. But the difference is clear: a paraphilia is simply an atypical attraction. A paraphilic disorder is an atypical attraction that causes personal distress or harm to others.

Some important things to note here:

Paraphilic disorders are treatable. Paraphilias often aren't.

A paraphilia is needed to have a paraphilic disorder, but paraphilic disorders are not a qualification to have a paraphilia

No, "icky" paraphilias such as pedophilia and necrophilia are not inherently disorders either. They must meet the already specified qualifications to be considered paraphilic disorders

Neither category automatically make someone more dangerous to be around than anyone else. Neither should be stigmatized and we should work to have more open and judgement-free discussions about these topics. Encouraging shame and self-hatred harms more than it helps

The distinction matters to me because I myself am a paraphile. A zoophile, to be exact. I am not distressed or impaired by my attractions, and I have never acted on my desires/hurt another being. My attractions are simply a piece of me that I live with. Being a zoophile is not debilitating to me like how zoophilic disorder is debilitating to many others I know. I don't have the same needs as those who have paraphilic disorders. And it frustrates me to have people describe my experience in ways that don't feel accurate to what I go through, or try to prescribe solutions to problems I don't have. It frustrates me even more when people so boldly proclaim that I'm a bad person for not attempting to cure a disorder I don't have, for daring to be comfortable with being a paraphile rather than self-loathing.

Many a time have I encountered ableist individuals who tell me I'm a bad person for not fitting the image of the poor, self-hating paraphile they can take pity on and feel superior to. Even if I did have a zoophilic disorder, having to walk on eggshells to meet their standard of a "good paraphile" to spare myself from being attacked and outcast would just be detrimental to my hypothetical condition.

The reality is that my zoophilia is not a disorder. It's just something I live with. It's a piece of me that has very little impact on how I live my life. And I'm tired of people trying to make my experiences and my needs into things that they're not. I would really appreciate it if people actually listened to individual paraphiles and what they experience/need rather than prescribing their needs and experiences for them.

Paraphilias in themselves are not inherently disordered or in need of treatment. If you'd like to read more about this subject in a more coherent, less rambly way, I highly recommend this article here

Sexual contact with creatures and people who can't consent is almost always abusive. (I say almost because things like sexual healthcare are not abusive; they're rights.) But there isn't a "slippery slope" to abuse. Finding something hot isn't going to make you an offender. In fact, even actively wanting to hurt someone doesn't make you an offender, as people with intrusive thoughts and fantasies must regularly remind themselves.

The broader culture we live in is very scared of paraphilia because they're scared of sexual abuse and struggle to understand why it happens. That fear causes people to conflate all of the many issues that tie into sexual deviancy. Which is bad enough if it makes people feel shame when they have done nothing wrong, but we also see how moral panics are used to control whole populations of people: the mentally ill, queer people, certain industries of professionals, incarcerated people, drug addicts....

Pedophilia ≠ CSA

Zoophilia ≠ bestiality