Should I date a devoté?

Fetishism is all fine and well, but IMO there is a line. Say for instance rubber/latex or S&M games… that’s something you can choose or at least consent to go along with. When you stop enjoying being a fetish partner, you can just stop playing that game. Your partner can live with it, or you can go find someone else.

In this case you can’t stop being a paraplegic fetish, and your options for finding someone else are slightly hindered by the condition. There’s a power aspect that is hard to ignore. This is sufficient to make me double-question his motives.

While it’s true that there’s a power aspect to the relationship, I would say that exists in every relationship umkay is going to have. Only in this case, her condition is actually a positive, which gives her some power back, if you think about it.

The logical flip side to not considering devotés is to only date people who merely tolerate your chair, and she’s been down that road.

Im thinking about this from his perspective, and marveling at just what a terrible predicament he’s in. The people he’s attracted to don’t want to date him, because he’s attracted to them.

Poor guy. I hope you give him a chance. It seems like you might miss out on a potentially good relationship otherwise. And I don’t think you should hold it against him that he’s into wheelchairs, unless the wheelchair thing is just a disguise for a dominance thing.

Ruling out devotees simply because they’re devotees is somewhat like telling short women they should never date really tall men who are into short women because there is a “power” dynamic due to the size/strength differences. Or say a woman shouldn’t date a man who is massively attracted to her physical form because one day she’ll be old and wrinkled and not so pretty and maybe he won’t love her anymore. Or Asian women shouldn’t date white men who are turned on by Asian women.

The disability a.k.a. “the chair” is going to be a part of umkay for the foreseeable future. Provided it’s not the sole thing holding their relationship together is it really so terrible if her partner has a kink for that?

Kinks/fetishes/preferences can become a problem in all sorts of relationships, not just those in which one person is disabled. Fact is, we all have our turn-ons and preferences, it’s normal to have those. Mentally/sexually normal people seek partners in line with those, although most partners don’t satisfy our entire checklist because those preferences/kinks/fetishes are not our SOLE criteria for a relationship.

Once again - as long as there are other things drawing two people together, common interests and so forth, I don’t see any more problem here than in any other new relationship. Good lord, the logistics of handling a disability are aggravating enough in my own marriage and my spouse is able to walk unassisted and take care of his physical needs on his own, umkay’s situation is just so much more complicated and requires so much more planning and work. A long-term relationship with a disabled mate has obstacles a relationship between AB’s doesn’t, at least a devotee mate would get a positive out of the work and aggravation. Provided it’s a healthy relationship (that is, involves normal relationship things outside of just an isolated sexual interest) I could see such a relationship being a blessing for both partners.

Of course, he could turn into a complete creepazoid stalker charcter. (So can non-devotee boyfriends, so this risk isn’t limited to just that situation.) Umkay strikes me a pretty self-assured and self-assertive young lady, and as noted she’s never really alone due to her physical needs. I’d like to think she wouldn’t put up with abuse.

Hey, kid - the decision is yours. Your situation isn’t one the rest of us have to deal with. Let us know what you decide and how it works out.

Um, no. I was implying that it would be creepy if someone is into you solely because you are physically less powerful, and have fewer dating alternatives, due to a physical and somewhat socially undesired condition that you can’t change. That is subtle difference from someone simply having a preferred physical type. It almost seems like such a person is looking for a mate they can physically dominate if necessary.

Well…most men don’t want to date a woman twice their size. Does dominance have anything to do with it?

Look, a woman who has a large bust usually has no problem with dating dudes who are breast-men.

Same with a woman who has nice legs, etc.

I don’t see a problem, unless you get one of the far end weirdos- just like the above two women could get. (I knew a woman with a fantastic bust who had a relationship with a extreme breast-man and he only wanted to have sex between her breasts…which she was Ok with but not all the time.)

Many DPWs (devotees, pretenders and wannabes) are thought to suffer from a mental disorder…Redirect Notice

Ambivalid, what do you think about the stories on that website? As a disabled man, are you offended by the portrayals of such in the fiction on that site? I just skimmed a couple of stories, and that chick seems really into 1) dudes in diapers, and 2) emphasizing how few romantic options they have (besides the female protagonist). Is this offensive to you? Cause I’m offended FOR you. :slight_smile:

This was a fine piece of logic and it really clarified some things for me. Next time I see Mr. Dev, I will ask him exactly that last question. (FYI I haven’t heard from him since our conversation the other night, so either he’s not as into me as he thought, or he is really embarrassed about telling me. We shall see).

THAT is a cool way to think about it. In a way, I do feel empowered in this situation. For the first time, I’m not in the position of having to prove to a guy that I’m “worth” the chair. And even though my pool of acceptable dating partners is admittedly limited, his is waaay smaller. I’ve got what he wants… :slight_smile:

Hahaha! That’s true, I guess. Poor him. :wink:

Why, thank you! :slight_smile:

I think the entire devotee idea is somewhat offensive-or problematic. I understand that, in the mildest of circumstances, devotees simply see ‘disability’ or whatever their specific aspect of a disability that they are attracted to is, as a particular part of a person that they are attracted to; much like any other attraction anyone else has for any other aspect of a person. But in most other circumstances, these aspects are qualities that the person who is being admired would also want someone to admire in them; they are generally positive aspects. Or at least neutral ones. As opposed to disability; which by it’s very definition is a negative quality.

So, IMO, even in these “mildest” of devotees, for me, I consider it probable to be found a disorder.

No, I don’t, and there are quite a few points to go into here.

  1. I don’t think a guy needs to be mentally ill to be into me. I just don’t. I’m an attractive woman who happens to be big. I’m an attractive big woman. Some guys are into that. That’s all there is to it.

  2. “The norm” is artificially narrow, anyway. There is nothing inherent in being human that dictates that thin, tall, fragile women are the most attractive, anywhere, any time. Go back 150 years or so, and chubby women were the thing to be. Men into skinny girls would be the freaks then, and they were biologically identical to the men we have now. Same with the guys who were into foot-bound chinese women, back when that was the ideal. Those women were disabled; many could hardly walk, most were in crippling pain. And yet, they were the standard of beauty, and “normal” men were into them. An entire nation go devotees, shaped by their culture to be into women with a particular, artificial disability. So there is nothing about “the norm” today that is inherent in men, it’s just a cultural artifact.

  3. Companion to the above: people are into all sorts of things, while being perfectly sane and loving partners. Foot-fetishists, BDSM’ers, crossdressers, diaper-fetishists, pie-throwing-fetishists, pony-players, breast-men and whatever else out there are basically sane and healthy, if they go about their kinks in a sane and healthy way.

  4. Just like a foot-fetishist isn’t into any old feet, or a Dom into any Sub, or gay guy into any man, or a straight man into all women, I don’t think men into fat women are into all fat women, or devotees into all disabled people.

In fact, I think a guy into fat women is better able to see me, better able to see past the weight, that a guy into skinny women. A guy who is into fat women is able to see that I, to him, am the most beautiful fat woman in the world, more beautiful than all the other fat women. A guy who isn’t into fat women just sees the fat; my beauty, or lack of it, is irrelevant to him; I’m fat, that’s all there is to it.

Do you feel that way? That men only see the chair, and won’t give you a chance? Maybe this guy saw the most beautiful girl in a wheelchair he ever saw before. Maybe he likes you and is attracted to the chair at the same time.

Does he want to do stuff with you, make you happy, bring you home to meet his parents, have pretty babies with you, and grow old and hideous and doomed to walk while you zipp around in a futuristic rocket powered flying wheelchair in the year 2043? What’s the harm in him finding you insanely attractive then?

But this isn’t an exact parallel to how devotees see disabled people. Or at least many don’t. You are describing yourself as an attractive woman first; who happens to be big. That is how you describe the way the men who are attracted to you might see you as well. But that is not how a wheelchair devotee would see a wheelchair user to whom they were attracted. You are putting your physical features that commonly are held in high esteem by the rest of the world up as the main attractive qualities that garner attention from men; you just happen to also be overweight. It’s not like that with devotees. If weight is a suitable substitute for disability in this example, then a devotee would be attracted to your weight itself; not your classic beauty in relation to that weight.

I’m in a wheelchair. The “devote(e)” thing does seem kind of weird if you just hear about it. I met a (able bodied) girl on a flight. We lived in different states, but she was going to visit me. We exchanged email and instant messaged each other. She told me I was cute, and at one point did say she was “attracted to guy with something ‘wrong’ with them.” It didn’t work out, she never visited, and she eventually married an able-bodied guy.

I don’t know if she would qualify as a devotee. As others have said, it isn’t all that different from someone who is into some other physical attribute. I was interested in her because I thought she was pretty. That isn’t really any different. We were attracted to each other, and went from there. If you weren’t interested in him, because of his appearance, or something else that would disqualify him, then it wouldn’t even be a topic of conversation.

How many people end up with their ideal partner? None of us are perfect, but you make compromises, and while “settle” has negative connotations, we all settle in some sense. I’m also in the “go for it” camp. Your youth will run out eventually.

Ambivalid, the way I see it, a lot of people have a physical “type”, more men than women, I think. Some men like tall brunettes. Some like petite women. Some like muscular women, some like pale women, or dark women, or whatever. Some like big women like me.

But those who are healthy, sane and respectful don’t just think “hey, a fat girl - good enough for me!” They see a women that are attracted to - tall, fat, skinny, blonde, freckled, toned etc. - and then go from there to develop a relationship. Healthy relationships are based on mutual trust, agreement on the large and small issues in life, and a general making-each-other-happy-ness. But also on a healthy, mutual sexual atraction (sorry for not qualifying for the asexuals among us, but you’ll just have to sit this one out, kay?). Most people manage to get there, despite the initial contact being made because they found each other attractive.

I think it’s entirely possibly for a guy, through no fault of his own, and without being insane, to have “disabled” as part of his “type”, without viewing the disabled individual as an object. Such a guy would simply be attracted to a woman in a wheelchair, and be able to develop a healthy, sane, mutually respectful relationship based on trust and love - and sex of course.

Then there are other guys who are objectifying assholes. We all deal with those. Heck, some guys objectify all women - which particular women doesn’t matter, so long as she has titts, right? I’m sure quite a lot of devotees fall into this category.

My point is that there isn’t necessarily something insane, or sleazy, or wrong, or objectifying, about being into disabled folks. Each of us - skinny, fat, able-bodied, wheelchair-bound - has to use our smarts, and empathy, to sort the wheat from the chaff. But to dismiss people who are into us, because they are into us, is self-defeating. You are in effect saying to yourself “No sane person could love me, so there must be something wrong with those who do.” That’s no way to live.

I had some very strange (imo) interactions with someone who turned out to be a devotee on Facebook about a year ago. I’ve actually met a few devotees on fb but this was the worst.

This was a very cute, young girl who friend-requested me a while back. I had never seen her before but since we apparently shared a couple of mutual friends (I didn’t notice it then but they were all male wheelchair users) I didn’t hestitate to add her. We quickly got to talking and the talking led to flirting; we both we seemingly attracted to each other.

The flirting led to Skyping, and before too long this girl said that she had something she wanted to tell me; something that might “freak me out”. I just told her to come out with it, I was not easily scared off. She said that she was into “guys with skinny legs”-as in guys with severly atrophied legs from a spinal cord injury. Well, that didn’t really freak me out but it did intrigue me (and of course, I have extremely atrophied legs).

Well this girl started taking her clothes off! Right there in front of the camera! But she only went so far, taking her shirt off and saying she wanted me to strip. I was a bit thrown off, to be honest, but I went with it, what the hell, she was hot.

Anyway, I started taking my shirt off and she stopped me: she wanted me to take my pants off. Damn, I thought, this girl’s a freak! But I complied and took off my pants. She asked me to point the camera down towards my legs. :confused: Um, ok. (and not that leg, either);). She wanted to have the camera focus on my atrophied legs while she stripped down. While I acquiesced and did it, it was truly bizarre. She wasn’t interested in seeing me; my face, my eyes, my upper body that I’ve spent so many hours, days and years toiling to improve. No, she just wanted to see the atrophied remains of what I have no control over. THIS is what turned her on.

Okay, so this set me off on a crazy rabbit trail. Follow me:

Are you familiar at all with the deaf community? My twin brother is married to a woman whose parents are deaf (born deaf). My SIL can hear just fine, but she grew up immersed in the deaf world. In conversations with her, I’m fascinated by the way that the deaf community views itself. In short, most deaf people (and especially those born deaf) do not consider deafness a disability. Many see it almost as a blessing, something that makes them special. It’s also a passport into a vibrant though insular community that outsiders are rarely invited to participate in.

While most communities of disabled people share a certain camaraderie, I’ve never heard of or seen one like the deaf community. I know other wheelchair users, and I appreciate being able to talk about common struggles and triumphs with them. But, “chair user” is not a primary identity to me, even though it’s a big part of my life practically. Given the chance, I would ditch this community sooo fast (no offense). My understanding from my limited experience is that a majority of deaf people just do not feel this way. They are puzzled and even pissed when people assume that deafness is something they “cope” with and that they would prefer to be hearing.

ALL that being said, what do you think a deaf person would make of a “deaf devotee” (if this exists)? Do you think they’d be as skeeved out as I have always been about chair devotees? Or do you think they’d be like, “Duh. Of course, you like that I’m deaf. It’s awesome.”

So why do deaf people think being deaf is awesome, and I don’t think being paralyzed is awesome? Well, obviously my specific situation is pretty involved. But, in terms of how a disability would affect everyday life, I’d think that life would be similar for a paraplegic and a deaf person. Which is to say, a full, independent, employed life is highly probable. Yet the chair user is far less likely to have created a strong, happy identity AS a chair user (and not in spite of being a chair user).

Why is this? Is it just because the deaf community has been fighting this battle a lot longer? Most quadriplegics with injuries as high as mine died within minutes or days of getting hurt as recently as 50 years ago. But deaf people, not unlike the Mormons, seem to have been galvanized by being made outsiders for virtually all of history. Yet no matter how long and how stridently the hearing world tells them that they are disabled, they just thumb their nose to us and continue not being disabled. That’s pretty B.A. (Since meeting my SIL, I’ve often thought that I would love to be an honorary member of this community, but I can’t perform sign language, so I don’t think I could get in).

Warned you it was going to be a rabbit trail. :stuck_out_tongue: But it really got me thinking when you brought up “disability” as an intrinsically negative concept, and I think it informs the way you and I view anyone who would seek us out romantically because they are so strangely “into” this negative thing.

[As a little post-script, I think my brother and his wife initially hit it off so well because they are both people who were exposed to disability at a young age. There’s a stereotype about kids of parents with disabilities having above-average empathy and sensitivity, and I think that could apply to siblings of people with disabilities, too (it definitely describes my twin well). So, in that sense, our disabilities can be a powerful force for good in the lives of the people who love us, as it expands their minds and hearts.]