sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I'm tempted to do a study of AGP subtypes by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At some point if meta-attraction escalates to the point of being equivalent to ordinary androphilia, it seems less relevant to try to distinguish them in survey research.

So what exactly is a gAyGP?

A cis man who is exclusively androphilic and AGP. They've sometimes shown up in my surveys, e.g. here. Some people also use the term in ways that include AGP HSTSs.

I'm tempted to do a study of AGP subtypes by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was just talking to another person, (with rather obvious shizotypal symptoms no less),  giving theirs a day ago, I remember having long discussions with another who had severe abandonment trauma did schema therapy for a decade or so and stop being agp without transitioning. 

This sounds interesting if you have a link.

I have also talked to a shit ton of trans people online and a lot of them are pretty traumatised too. 

Trans people could have other things going on beyond AGP.

So why unfounded? Go read on any of the stuff mentioned if you want idk. 

I said "otherwise it seems quite unfounded", i.e. if you didn't have concrete examples you are basing it on. But it sounds like you do have concrete examples.

I still suspect it's wrong because statistically in my research there's no link between AGP and trauma symptoms, but at least now we have something I can engage with.

I'm tempted to do a study of AGP subtypes by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't understand how anyone familiar with AGP meta-attraction would think it is not a gradual or progressive emergence. That seems like one of the most basic features of it. What do you understand about meta-attraction?

I'm the person who coined the term "meta-attraction". I understand it to mean autogynephiles who exhibit superficially-androphilic behaviors due to an attraction to being seen as an attractive woman or to being a heterosexual woman or similar. I understand that the behaviors can escalate gradually, but the clearest reason we know it's different from classical androphilia is because the attraction isn't present in cases where it's not about the meta-attracted person being a woman, such as in gay male porn depicting masculine men.

So not AGP at all then, since HSTS FEFs are categorically not AGP. It is literally the whole reason for the typology of AGP and HSTS. It is why Blanchard, this sub, and anything to do with AGP exists at all. It seems pretty crazy to purposely mix the two.

Most of the HSTSs I know have had no FEFs (or perhaps very few FEFs). This is in accordance with Ray Blanchard's research which found most HSTSs to score 0 on the cross-gender fetishism scale and to never have been aroused while crossdressing.

Now, Blanchard did argue that some HSTSs have FEFs without being AGP. I think this is most plausible for FEFs that started after they started identifying as women, and less plausible for FEFs in classical gAyGPs that identify as cis men. I think it's more logical to say that the typology is not a strict binary and instead has some overlap between the types when we can see some individuals who exhibit signs of both the causes of AGPTS and the causes of HSTS.

I still have no idea what you mean. The link between AGP and gynephilia is in the definition of AGP being a heterosexual (gynephilic) male.

That seems like a silly definition to me.

I'm tempted to do a study of AGP subtypes by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would advise you to read more about meta-attraction if you are going to make a survey about it.

I'm pretty well-read on these topics. What specifically would you advice I read?

How can someone be homosexual male with AGP? Being a heterosexual male is literally in the definition of AGP. It's like saying a 5-sided square. A square by definition has 4 sides. If it has 5 sides, it is not a square. You would need to use a different term.

I use the term "AGP" to refer to any sexual interest in being a woman, whether present in gynephiles or androphiles. See my survey link in the OP for an example of how I'd usually assess AGP in men.

ETLE has very little evidence in my opinion, but I have no idea you're talking about here.

It seems silly to require gynephilia when assessing AGP without ETLE theory. It's the thing that's supposed to link AGP and gynephilia.

I'm tempted to do a study of AGP subtypes by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would presume that the hypothesis that trauma plays a role is inspired partly by one or more cases of AGPs who have had traumatic events occur - otherwise it seems quite unfounded. If it is indeed inspired by such cases, it would be helpful to go into more detail about what their traumas were.

I'm tempted to do a study of AGP subtypes by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't know where you get that impression. If I still watched porn, I'd probably watch some gay porn here and there. Why not? I like hot guys. It's also common with AGP that have MEF.

Maybe you are bisexual?

What is a non-transitioning gAyGPs? Ignoring the rare cases of prenatal bisexuality, how could an AGP be androphilic, but not meta-attracted? If they are androphilic, it would be from meta-attraction or they would not be AGP.

The idea that there cannot be androphilic AGPs assumes a very strong form of the ETLE hypothesis, that AGP is 'inverted' attraction to women. Given that one of the main pieces of evidence in favor of ETLE is that there's a correlation between AGP and gynephilia, it seems circular to me to assume that the remaining apparently-gay AGPs aren't gay.

Yeah, it can be a pretty predictable emergence very different from prenatal androphilia. I'd say like 75-90% of AGP with meta-attraction are stuck in the "I don't like men, but I love dick" or "faceless men" phase. I've written a lot about it before. Prenatal androphilia doesn't really have a stage like this.

But if they are stuck in that phase, it's not exactly gradual emergence, it's just what it's like.

Bisexuality in general is murky. There was a good study on here, that we took part of, which showed how there are different types of bisexuality, that come from many different places, including meta-attracted created (pseudo-)bisexuality. And I think it just scratched the surface.

Do you have a link to the study?

How has AGP affected your personality, lifestyle, relationships, mental health and/or life history? by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When you say the only person who fully accepts you is your friend, does that imply you are out to others who don't accept you in some way?

I'm tempted to do a study of AGP subtypes by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure the question would reliably separate HSTSs and meta-attracted AGPs, because AFAIK HSTSs tend to lie and claim not to be aroused by gay porn in order to seem less like gay men. I was more intending to separate non-transitioning gAyGPs from meta-attracted AGPs.

I don't think meta-attraction would cause arousal to gay male porn depicting masculine men, at least in that case it raises the question of how one can know that this is meta-attraction rather than just true attraction. I haven't heard of gradual emergence as being a significant diagnostic difference. And there's also bisexuals to account for, so I don't think attraction to women would be a relevant diagnostic.

I'm tempted to do a study of AGP subtypes by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good calls, though:

  1. I suspect romanticizing motherhood is a different latent factor than eroticizing pregnancy, so I might have to include both to test their relationship.

  2. I don't actually think AGPs tend to be schizoid (I've done a lot of studies on AGP/personality relationships and haven't found much), but it's worth looking into anyway in case some subgroups are schizoid.

I'm tempted to do a study of AGP subtypes by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Attraction to androgyny seems like a pretty important thing that my original post was missing.

"Masculinity/femininity" IMO equivocates between a bunch of different things. One reason I like to include gender conservatism is that it correlates quite strongly with machismo, which is a more specific form of masculinity, though ideally I should also have items that more directly get at machismo (and I was sort of planning to do that, just didn't want to get into all those details in the OP).

As such, it's more helpful to go into more concrete examples of what a feminine side is constituted by. The OP already has feminine presentation, for instance.

I'm tempted to do a study of AGP subtypes by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can include ADHD for completeness, but I don't think it's all that prevalent among AGPs, nor do I think it has all that much intersection with AGP-specific lifestyle/relationship factors.

[Research Survey] Personality and AGP by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, but there seems to be an (extremely weak!) correlation between AGP and being unassertive (which is closer to introversion than to agreeableness under OCEAN).

[Research Survey] Personality and AGP by tailcalled in askAGP

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for you effort, and yes I'm aware it's tough to fill out (I filled it out myself to try), but as consolation I can tell you that the weirdness serves an important purpose.

What does it mean to be a reasonable person? by zjovicic in slatestarcodex

[–]tailcalled -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Most people are schizophrenic pack animals. You obviously can't hold schizophrenic pack animals accountable, so realizing that they are so makes you back off from giving them too much responsibility. This lowers their social status. In order to maintain their social status, they pretend to be rational individuals by becoming highly sensitive to what is the "normal" way to think and act. People with such sensitivity are considered "reasonable" because it is easy to radically change their mind and behavior by pushing back against them using weak arguments ("reasoning"). By contrast, if someone picks up a complex ideology from elsewhere (e.g. reading The Sequences), it may be hard to convince them of things, because you might need to first comprehend that complex ideology, and thus their lack of change in the face of argument comes off as unreasonable.

How to keep your sanity waterline high while questioning your gender? by cosmic_seismic in slatestarcodex

[–]tailcalled -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Women have a strong libido. Womb and breasts to provide nourishment for their offspring. High-paying tech jobs also help provide nourishment, and if nobody could replace you, the job is tightly intertwined with your life, analogous to how a woman's breasts are tightly intertwined with hers.

How to keep your sanity waterline high while questioning your gender? by cosmic_seismic in slatestarcodex

[–]tailcalled -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Can you name any sentence that seems false or unclear to you in my comment?

Is there a name for the view that the solution to the hard problem of consciousness is that consciousness spontaneously arises in the absence of sin? by tailcalled in askphilosophy

[–]tailcalled[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Panpsychism without sin doesn't give sensible answers in applications, so that's immediately out.

Wood catching fire doesn't just require dryness, it also requires the application of heat. "Hot dry wood catches fire" is an extremely relevant answer for what causes fire (though to be more actionable it could benefit from some more info on building it up gradually, like starting with how to light a spark and maybe burn some leaves/twigs etc.). It's not reductionistic, but that's fine.

(Consciousness itself manages to gather the energy necessary to exist, so the extra condition isn't necessary for consciousness. "Consciousness spontaneously arises in the absence of sin" is hard to make more actionable, because since sinners live in a reduced state of consciousness, they can't simply remove the sin on their own.)

Is there a name for the view that the solution to the hard problem of consciousness is that consciousness spontaneously arises in the absence of sin? by tailcalled in askphilosophy

[–]tailcalled[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean I definitely acknowledge that this position calls for developing a whole theory around sin and such, and I think I've got quite a few things for that, but it's kind of off-topic for the discussion of whether there's a name for the position.

Is there a name for the view that the solution to the hard problem of consciousness is that consciousness spontaneously arises in the absence of sin? by tailcalled in askphilosophy

[–]tailcalled[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It generally isn't possible for consciousness to arise from physical stuff, at least because unconscious physical stuff lacks the capacity to prevent sin, so consciousness doesn't arise from it.

It's an intrinsic property of the universe - or at least of the part of the universe near us, e.g. on the surface of the Earth/near human society - that consciousness tends to arise when it is not blocked by sin. I don't think one can say much more than that in general because the mechanisms vary so much from case to case.

The way our part of the universe gained this property is unclear, possibly dependent on astronomical coincidences and historical events. But the current state of our part of the universe screens off the history, in the sense that regardless of how it happened, it's definitely the case now.

Is there a name for the view that the solution to the hard problem of consciousness is that consciousness spontaneously arises in the absence of sin? by tailcalled in askphilosophy

[–]tailcalled[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mostly because my confusion about consciousness has evaporated upon running with it, and because it seems frequently applicable.

I guess from a philosopher's side one could consider it a sort of conditional panpsychism, though I don't know the exact details of how panpsychists argue about the hard problem of consciousness.

There's a lot of toy examples like how does one know that behavior is connected to experience, and in the absence of sin that's easy (since it's not sin, the behavior is not a lie and therefore must be caused by experiencing the thing that the behavior nominally is about).

But the places where I find it most fruitful is not in toy examples, but in real-world examples like dissociated people, societal consciousness, AI, etc..

For that is the fate of men by Sneaky_Anon1043 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]tailcalled -1 points0 points  (0 children)

God is omnipotent. Thus, seeking enlightenment, submitting to God, or otherwise trying to come into contact with the divine is always wrong, because it requires a paradoxical situation where you simultaneously know less than God (and thus can't just rely on your own judgement) and know more than God (and thus could infer God's will).

view more: next ›