Long Jean Silver had a successful porn career with her amputee stump. I guess there’s a fetish out there for everyone.
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
This is kind of what I meant by “I’m attractive despite my disability not because of it”.
Yeah I think amputee porn is the most popular type of disability porn and devotees in general.
I like that. Other than one or two other posters I’ve not known of any others who’ve probably even bothered to understand it. Many usernames are just written down as the first brain fart that farts into their thoughts.
I really appreciate a clever username. I mentioned an appreciation for the username to someone in a thread today. It was probably an inappropriate place to do so but I had to. Its probably on of my top 2 or 3 favorite usernames here.
Wow, I guess I should’ve seen it coming (Rule 34 and all) but this particular fetish is right out of left field.
I could conceive of a situation where someone’s strength in the face of adversity such as a physical disability would be attractive as a demonstration of confidence and character, but this is definitely not what you’re saying. To like someone specifically because of the disability is bizarre. The fact that she could (from what I’ve gathered) so casually admit that to you is also disturbing. If I had a fetish, I’d try to keep it on the downlow.
May I ask: how did you meet? Was it via a dating site where you presumably had a picture or disclosure of your situation? Is this the first time you’ve encountered this?
Small comparison - my wife is Asian. (I’m white. It’s a coincidence which is to say I wasn’t looking for a type by race when we met - she just seemed smart and likeable and my boss who I’d thought was a redneck talked me into asking her out. But I digress). She and her sister both reported meeting lots of guys with “yellow fever” and had no interest in dating any of them or being the object of a fetish instead of in what they considered a proper relationship based on a deeper compatibility or actual respect.
But you are also attractive as a person, with or without your disability. And how are fat legs different than a life-threateningly fat belly? Or in my case… when I was very young, I saw pictures of concentration camp victims. I felt a sexual attraction, even though I was too young to identify it as such. A little older, and I identified these feelings as “sick”, but that didn’t stop the attraction.
We must’ve been typing at the same time as I made my last reply and I didn’t see this part.
Perhaps I shouldn’t presume to say I understand, but I thought I did. Perhaps you can tell me if I’m right - I see a portmanteau of “ambivalent and invalid” which I took to mean that you’re not letting your legs define you. Further I though that the abbreviation to “valid” spoke to your attitude about the word “invalid” in general. From that I assumed you were a strong person, one who rejected labels and was even more likely to be confounded by this woman’s fetish.
My name isn’t so clever. My actual name is Marlon and a friend called me Marlonius years ago and it stuck. My name is uncommon enough that I had never had a nickname until then and I took it for all my online activities.
See this my point: I’m not attractive to devotees without my disability. My gf would definitely agree with your first sentence. As would most all of the girls from previous relationships. But I’d never hear that from a true devotee. Because if I didn’t have that disability, they’d never be attracted to me. Cause it was never about me.
And for the purposes of the discussion, they’re is no difference between fat legs and fat bellys. The point is the the fat legs (or fat belly)are specificly the only thing attracting a devotee. They aren’t attracted to fat. people, they attracted fat legs. It can become a conflicting and awkward dynamic when it turns sexual.
Gotcha. But I had met one guy who, it turned out, was into fucking fat guys in their “innie” navels. In spite of the mutual attraction, he rejected me because I wasn’t fat enough to have a navel that was deep enough to fuck. :rolleyes:
Yeah, no. That chick is weird. So how did this exchange come about? Did she just see you online and start messaging you asking to see your legs?
Just think, man! She was probably in the 89th percentile of “Sane People On The Internet”.
I’m impressed. Probably the most accurate Interpretation yet. A trophy guy was my other choice. :p. Sometimes I wish I woulda 
Power to you sir!
For my part, I’m impressed with myself for finally using “portmanteau” in a sentence.
Probably not very uncomfortable, no. I’ve read stories about jewish people who had fantasies about being sexually dominated by people wearing nazi uniforms so my bar is set pretty high for uncomfortable fetish. I’m pretty libertine about fetishes and the social violations that come along with them as long as they involve consenting adult humans.
You mention how you feel it is creepy to be attracted to a lack of things like mobility or legs. That is your prerogative, but I don’t see how that is fundamentally different than being attracted because a person has something you like. The fact that this issue has a personal sting to it for you doesn’t necessarily make the fetish wrong.
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.
I don’t believe I characterized a fetish for disability as “wrong” or “right”. Who am I to tell anybody what is “ok” to be sexually attracted to? I did characterize it as “weird”, however. Because that’s like, my opinion, man.
Descriptors like ‘weird’ ‘mentally ill’, ‘offensive’ or ‘creepy’ for people who have fetish X imply a value judgement against the fetish in question.
I’m fat right now. Are there women who are turned on my solely because I’m fat? I’m sure there are (my PM box is always open to you ladies too, cough). Yeah, someone who likes me solely because I’m fat wouldn’t do much for me because I’d feel objectified. I’ve also been thin and athletic at various points in my life too, and I felt the same way about that. Women who liked me because I was thin and athletic only liked me because of it and they stopped liking me the second I stopped being thin and athletic.
I guess my point is that it is a fine, but confusing line between being objectified and being holistically desired and it isn’t always easy to figure out where you stand.
I willingly admit that finding such a fetish to be weird is a value judgment that I personally hold. I also admit that my personal experiences being objectified in this way have colored my view of them. If I wasn’t clear about that, I apologize. Yes, I think having a prerequisite need of disability in order to be sexually attracted to another person is weird, it’s offensive and I believe is indicative of an underlying mental illness. These are my opinions. What’s the problem here?
This is really interesting. We have lots of conversation going on here, but I don’t think it’s at all clear what the problem is here, if there’s any problem at all. There are these different senses: value judgement, weird, offensive, creepy, and others.
Are there consequences to each of these? If the end result is that you won’t end up pursuing a relationship with the devotee you talked with online, of course there’s no problem whatsoever. You get to not pursue based on any reason whatsoever, or no reason at all. I, at least, don’t think you “shouldn’t” find her creepy or otherwise repellant.
You didn’t suggest any of the following, but just to explore, if you wanted to be able to deny internet access to people who voice her thoughts, or you wanted them tracked down like child molesters are, then it’s more difficult to say. There’s lots of behaviors that are easy to imagine giving us pause or making us personally uncomfortable, but that aren’t clearly problematic enough to try to create negative consequences for the people doing them.
She describes at least two things. One is “partialism”, meaning having a great deal of sexual focus on a particular body part. Like Broomstick pointed out, partialism is already something lots of people receive from others, and it seems like generally it would limit the relationship and be disappointing. The other is the nature of her partialism in particular, because it’s focused on a lack of something.
And maybe that’s a kind of mental illness. They’re still not sure what causes the most ordinary kinds of attraction, let alone attractions that are quite obscure like this.