Armchair psychology thread - quibbling over definitions

File: freud.jpg (636KB, 1412x2000px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 1412x2000px

So, I've been theorizing in a traditional rationalist manner about how to go about explaining sexuality in a more comprehensive manner that attempts to make sense of kinks, power dynamics and general anomalies.

People often make a mistake in how they identify sexuality by generalising specific preferences and instances of sexual expression. The mistake is committing a category error of over-simplification by making the gay - straight spectrum a model to encompass all sexual behavior.

Instead, I would argue that sexuality can be divided into different hierarchical categories or subsets with different degrees of interplay. For instance, whether you consider yourself gay, straight or bi, should be considered your primary mode of attraction, and the primary subset. This defines your main sexual impetus, what kind of partner you are most willing to pursue.

The secondary subset relates to your personality type, to what extent you are defined as dominant or submissive. As it is not the primary category, it does not most basically the kind of partner you are after, but it does produce another level of selection between different partners of the same sex, and it may under specific circumstances manifest in homosexual displays of dominance, in spite of the primary mode of attraction, due to the tension created by the social imbalance.

The third and least category is the category of paraphilias. Parahilias are those sexual desires or fixations on objects not typically associated with sexual activity. They may arise from the period of sexual maturation, when certain concepts are tied up with sexual attitudes and become associated with the same.

These categories describe different levels of interaction on a subconscious, emotional level, which combine in various ways to produce the different expressions of sexuality we know.