# The attraction to disability is weird. Period. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 13, 2017, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attraction-to-disability-is-weird-period/784418 "2017-04-13T23:25:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attraction-to-disability-is-weird-period/784418/61 "2017-04-19T05:33:04Z")
I can respond to this more completely tomorrow but I just wanted to make one thing clear: these are my personal opinions. I am expressing them, not asserting them as superior in any way. I’d never get in the way of anyone’s personal behavior, as long as everyone involved is consenting. ---
**Author:** ![Not\_Carlson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc79bd/32.png) [@Not\_Carlson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Not_Carlson)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attraction-to-disability-is-weird-period/784418/62 "2017-04-19T14:47:58Z")
@ **Ambivalid** : I think you’re fully justified in seeing her fetish as weird and offensive, it having been directed toward you the way it was. > [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > People are turned on by a wide range of things, I don’t see why this is different. Being attracted to someone because they are disabled is no different than being attracted to someone because they have red hair or glasses. > [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > The fact that this issue has a personal sting to it for you doesn’t necessarily make the fetish wrong. Actually, I’d say that’s exactly what makes it wrong for Ambivalid. I see two problems here. [ol] [li]If you’re attracted to _people_ with particular physical attributes, that’s fine and good. If you have a particular porn fetish, it probably ain’t no thing. But if you are asking people to _be_ you fetish porn or your fleshlight, and they aren’t on board with that, that’s bad. This woman was basically asking Ambivalid to be her fetish porn. [/li][li]If you’re attracted to _people_ who are fat or thin or have some particular physical peculiarity or character quirk, there’s nothing wrong with that. But if you’re attracted to the idea morbid obesity or anorexia or physical injury, I’d say that’s slipping into questionable territory. And if you are attracted to human suffering and sorrow and misfortune, and seek that out for your own gratification at the expense of others or with indifference to their circumstances and feelings, then that is just wrong.[/li][/ol] > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > I suppose the real difference is the personal impact it has on the object of fixation. I doubt ‘‘red hair’’ or ‘‘glasses’’ quite has the same sting. This here. ---
**Author:** ![Not\_Carlson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/bc79bd/32.png) [@Not\_Carlson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Not_Carlson)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attraction-to-disability-is-weird-period/784418/63 "2017-04-19T14:53:01Z")
On a side issue: > [@Tranquilis](#): > > Eh. It’s people. I forget who said it, but one of the big-brain psych types said something along the line of “_the only truely perverse sexuality is a complete lack of sexuality_” or something like that. > [@Tranquilis](#): > > No. Wrong - There is still a sexuality in homosexuality. It’s just being exhibited in a format that is reproductively null. That’s entirely different from having _no_ sexuality. As human beings, I think we are defined far more by our cognitive abilities than by our sexuality. And while the intricacies of our social behaviors and interactions also define us and form a basis for what is considered normality, our sexuality is only a part of that. The term “perversion”, if taken to mean that which deviates from what is socially acceptable or that which may have a socially negative influence, then I don’t see how it applies at all to asexuality, which makes no imposition on anyone else. A flasher could be considered a pervert. A peeping Tom could be considered a pervert. An ace? No. > [@monstro](#): > > I dunno. As someone who is pretty dang asexual, you can call me a lot of things (weird, strange, eccentric). But at least I don’t bother anyone, like people looking for sex often do. Perzackly. > [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > FWIW, I think asexuality is just something along the spectrum of all healthy sexuality. No weirder than any other way to be. > > Although I will mention, with some frustration, prior to finding my mate, I had a habitual tendency to fall for asexual men, which is a pain in the ass. But that’s not _their_ fault. Out of curiosity, would you say that was just your bad luck, or did their asexuality perhaps go some way to creating the attraction (eg, an absence of leeriness, a sense of safeness, interactions free of sexual tension). It occurred to me that one of the most frustrating fetishes would be a sexual attraction only to asexual people. Mutually frustrating, I would imagine. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attraction-to-disability-is-weird-period/784418/64 "2017-04-19T15:14:49Z")
> [@Not\_Carlson](#): > > The term “perversion”, if taken to mean that which deviates from what is socially acceptable or that which may have a socially negative influence… Do recall it was used by in an academic context, which is much more precise in meaning and much less interested in social connotation. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attraction-to-disability-is-weird-period/784418/65 "2017-04-19T21:36:12Z")
nm. Already addressed. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attraction-to-disability-is-weird-period/784418/66 "2017-04-19T21:47:55Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I wonder if men with disabilities are more skeeved out by devotees than women with disabilities? > > Because the whole thing about valuing a part over the whole is something all women have to deal with - the tit-obsessed, ass-obsessed, etc. I’m not talking about guys who consider such attributes along with everything else, I’m talking about the ones that really go overboard with fetishizing a trait. Men are not as used to getting that treatment. Well, one thing I’d feel comfortable saying is that women with disabilities are probably quite a bit more familiar with the fetish and those who engage in it than vice versa. That is mostly because of the sheer numerical disparity, there are many more male devotees than female. I agree completely with your second paragraph talking about how women have to deal with such objectification regularly. My personal experiences with it has given me a fresh perspective from which to view their experiences and feelings on the matter. Empathy increased. ---
**Author:** ![Cub\_Mistress](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea666f/32.png) [@Cub\_Mistress](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cub_Mistress)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2017, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attraction-to-disability-is-weird-period/784418/67 "2017-04-22T02:06:29Z")
Well. I’d say that fetishes are all well and good as long as all parties involved agree to and enjoy them. If one person involved is uncomfortable, it’s a no go. Everyone is entitled to feel valued for themselves, whatever that means to them. As to devotees, I’ve heard second hand from a woman amputee who had met a devotee. She noted that it was a little weird, but he seemed nice enough and if he was attracted primarily to her amputation, at least it was to something that wasn’t going to change about her. It certainly gave me something to think about. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2017, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attraction-to-disability-is-weird-period/784418/68 "2017-04-22T08:07:43Z")
> [@Cub\_Mistress](#): > > Well. I’d say that fetishes are all well and good as long as all parties involved agree to and enjoy them. If one person involved is uncomfortable, it’s a no go. Everyone is entitled to feel valued for themselves, whatever that means to them. > > As to devotees, I’ve heard second hand from a woman amputee who had met a devotee. She noted that it was a little weird, but he seemed nice enough and if he was attracted primarily to her amputation, at least it was to something that wasn’t going to change about her. It certainly gave me something to think about. I think I agree - it’s all good fun as long as nobody is getting hurt. Fetishes are a weird human quirk, and l think it’s a ‘spectrum’ thing where probably everyone has some degree of something that could be classified as a fetish - its just that for most people, their fetish is common and mild enough to be regarded as ‘normality’ If someone says they’ve got a bit of a thing for large breasts, we might not agree, but we just shrug it off because it’s not exactly abnormal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-attraction-to-disability-is-weird-period/784418.md?page=3)