Definitions are not to be taken lightly. Linguists will tell
you that while words may exhibit a great deal of variance based only
on context, there are some aspects which seem to be entirely
intrinsic. The study of these is called Semantics, and it is a bit of
a slippery fish.
Let's
suppose you are trying to come up with a definition of dogs which
would allow you to distinguish every dog from everything else in the
universe. The following definition certainly seems reasonable, “A
dog is a quadrupedal land mammal with fur and a tail; it barks, eats
meat, and lives with people.” However, the Basenji
doesn't bark, the Mexican Hairless is of course hairless,
and furthermore some dogs are wild. This goes on and on to what some
see as ridiculous lengths until we end up asking what is common to a
picture of a pipe, the word 'pipe', and a pipe itself.
This
might seem too abstract and theoretical to ever apply to any of our
lives, so let's look at an historical example. Race relations as we
know them in the United States owe their legacy to a Swiss Biologist
named Carl Linnaeus whose most enduring contributions to science were
his works in Taxonomy and the creation of binomial nomenclature (L.
canis lupus etc.) Taxonomy, you
may recall from Biology when you were made to memorize, by whatever
cheeky mnemonic, the following categories: Kingdom, Phylum, Class,
Order, Family, Genus, Species.
It's
an old idea which ultimately stretches back to Aristotle's concept of
“categories”. So taken was Linnaeus with Taxonomy that he set out
to categorize everything in the natural world up to and including
humans. While he certainly did a great deal to advance our
understanding of and ability to talk about the natural world, in some
ways he was blithely naïve.
Regrettably,
Linnaeus did end up classifying people according to their skin color
which naturally paved the way for more than two hundred years of
heartache and bloodshed, whose ill effects are still being felt to
this day. So, while I am certainly no Linneaus, I still feel a
measure of trepidation as I approach this task.
Here,
I will do my best to describe as accurately as possible my community
and its various sub-groups with which I am not as familiar. While I
certainly care about doing this right, I am limited in many ways.
There is a strikingly spare amount of empirical data available about
devotees and so I have little to rely on save for my own observations
which naturally taint any effort toward objectivity.
That
being said...
There appear to be three primary
categories people in this community tend to fall into. The main
categories provided here have been created by these people, and are
frequently listed in this order, to describe and distinguish
themselves from others both in and outside of their community. There
are though, a number of people who occupy more than one category, or
all three.
It is wise though to treat these not as
rules of human behavior, but rather a simple guide to some of the
more common forms. There are quite likely more varieties than those
described below. One key concept stressed in this entry is that human
behavior is rarely so neatly compartmentalized. There are absolutely
cases of overlap between the three main categories, and even within
each category between its sub-varieties; thus the situation is
potentially much more complex than what is presented here. Each
person in any of these categories has a different life story and thus
a different set of circumstances from which they approach these
issues and thus the subject of dis/ability in general. It is
dangerously reductive to suggest that we could understand an
individual's current situation, development, etc. based on these
labels alone.
Devotees (D)
– People identifying as devotees have an attraction which is
in some way connected to disability. There are devotees representing
many different ages, races, income levels, national origins, genders,
sexual orientations, and even states of dis/ability. However, one of
the only stable and unifying points found in research regarding
devotees is that something around 90-95% of them are men.
Currently amputee devotees seem to be
the most common form, though this likely changes as disability does
in society (i.e. during the polio epidemic of the 1950's) Some
devotees are attracted to or by one specific disability (i.e. right
above the knee amputees), a handful of seemingly unrelated
disabilities (i.e. quadriplegia, blindness, and cerebral palsy), or
sometimes to or by a certain class of disabilities (i.e. mobility
impairments). Some though may be specifically attracted to or
by the assistive devices involved, and thus the presence of a
disability in their partner is of lesser or sometimes no importance.
Thus pretenders and wannabes/transabled people end up abused in many
of the same ways. Some even prefer able bodied partners who pretend
to have a disability. This is an important distinction to draw.
Naturally there are those who may share
varying types of attractions. For example it is not uncommon to find
some devotees who are attracted to people with disabilities as
well as certain assistive devices involved. These attractions
though are not always in equal proportion, and this point must be
stressed.
Some devotees, for example, are only
attracted to people with disabilities, and some are only
attracted to people who use assistive devices (for any
reason). Some though are attracted to people with disabilities, and
people without disabilities; they can function sexually without the
presence disability or assistive devices, though they may prefer or
enjoy them from time to time.
In Psychology there
is a concept called “paraphilia” which, in the DSM: IV at least,
originally refers to a disorder whereby a person must have a
given non-human object present in order to achieve orgasm. This has
been somewhat revised with the inclusion of a paraphilia called
“partialism” referring to a paraphilic focus on a certain body
part (conventionally, big breasts, though in devotees this can be
understood as being attracted to the disability itself
regardless of the person involved) The general name for the
paraphilias associated with devotees are “abasiophilia” and
“acromotomophilia”, though there has been very little research
into these. Generally speaking, once a person has a acquired a
paraphilia (any paraphilia) or a psychologically significant
kinky attraction, they do not go away, and there are few proven
methods of eliminating these desires.
As has been
implied, not
all devotees are paraphiliacs, though some are.
This is a phenomenon we can see repeated in BDSM culture as well.
Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy have talked about “kinky”
sex existing on a continuum instead of a binary
“you-are-or-you-aren't” mode of being. Some people enjoy sex
accompanied by elaborate scenarios with lots of whips, knots and
leather, and some people may enjoy the thrills of riding a fast paced
roller coaster, and having “vanilla” sex afterward. In either
case , to hear Easton and Hardy tell it, these people are playing
with the same emotional “energy”, even though each may think the
other to be weird.
[Note: Just to
clarify any speculations which may arise, there is no known limit on
the number of paraphilias one person may have. However; in one text I
found, which had a heavy diagnostic emphasis, the authors had found
one documented case of a man who reported having nine paraphilias.
It's the largest number I, or the authors of that text, have been
able find.]
Pretenders
(P)
– Pretenders, as the name implies, pretend that they have some sort
of disability or disabilities. The population for pretenders is just
as wide as that of devotees, though they have been studied even less
and there is relatively nothing empirical to draw from. Pretenders
here are distinguished from people who pretend to have a disability
in order to qualify for benefits from the government, insurance
companies, to avoid armed service, etc. Pretenders find that they are
driven to pretend not by any financial, legal, or other outside
incentive, but by the act itself.
As with devotees, it appears that amputee pretenders are more common,
though there are those who pretend they have many other types of
disabilities. Pretending, it must be noted, can be done in the
absence of assistive devices (supposing they are even necessary to
simulate the given disability), though generally it seems that the
more important a device is for someone with a given disability to
accomplish
ADL (Activities of Daily Living) the more
important it will be to the pretender.
Some pretenders are very secretive and will only pretend unobserved
in some safe isolated space, usually the home, though others enjoy
going out in public. Some only go out in public to relatively
deserted places or at night when they are sure they will not be seen,
though others enjoy going out in public during regular business hours
and interacting with others, some even going so far as to take full
vacations simulating their given disability. I have known a few who
sought mental health counseling and were encouraged to periodically
go out on pretending trips far away from home, as the practitioner
felt it was easily analogous to cross dressing, for which a similar
“treatment” is often advised.
There are debates among pretenders who do venture outside the home
about how to behave in public. Some believe it is appropriate to use
adapted bathroom stalls, hotel rooms, ramps, and even accept
discounts etc. though others do not. This is part of a larger
discussion about to how present one's self when in public so as to
avoid defaming the disabled by acting too rude or helpless etc. It is
hard to draw a consensus here, though what I have seen from those who
have regular internet access and are brave enough to talk
about it, most agree care should be taken to avoid rudeness etc. Opinions
though do differ, often fervently, on whether or not to use
bathroom stalls, and other services which may cause the pretender to interfere in the life
of someone with a disability.
As with devotees there are many reasons pretenders find themselves
wanting to pretend. There are pretenders who are simply fascinated
with the given assistive devices. For example I have known some
groups of pretenders who enjoyed toying with and customizing
wheelchairs the same way some people enjoy toying with and
customizing cars. Some I've known enjoy toying with both in the same
manner. In some ways it appears as a fascination with alternate forms
of mobility which has merely found its focus.
It is not uncommon though to hear other pretenders describing
their pretending as similar to cross dressing. This is said
speculatively by pretenders who have no history of cross dressing,
though it is also said by pretenders who have been life long members
of the transgender/transsexual/transvestite /etc. community.
Pretenders who cross dress have sometimes described their pretending
as an extension of their cross dressing.
For
some it may have a sexual dimension. If we understand that
transvestite pretenders see their pretending as an extension of their
crossdressing, then we may infer that perhaps for some pretenders who
have a sexual dimension to their pretending it could be understood as
similar to transvestic fetishists who are aroused by wearing clothing
of another sex. Again, there are many overlaps between these three
groups, and so we can understand that the devotee who is attracted
not so much to the person with a disability as the assistive devices
involved, may find enjoyment merely in various types of interaction
with a given device, and thus also
be a pretender, potentially at least.
There does exist a certain category of paraphilias which involves
arousal associated with certain conditions being applied to the self.
Autogynophilia involves feelings of arousal of having the genitalia
of the opposite sex. This specifically applies to male identified
people, and is curiously more often discussed than its female counterpart. It is likely then
that there are also pretenders who are aroused at the idea of being
disabled, and pretending for them may sometimes be an extension of
that. However, just because a pretender is aroused at the idea of
being disabled, and pretends to aid in this arousal, we still can not
claim that every act of pretending is taken toward this end.
This is one of the more frustrating aspects of classifying mental
events based only on things like behavior and stated desire. Perhaps
we will one day see neuroscience shed some light on this matter.
Pretending is not limited to simply how one acts in real life. As
social networking has reared its head certain forms of pretending
have become more common.
When anyone creates a facebook
profile and uploads a picture of themselves, it is unavoidably a
picture from their past; this is the nature of the medium. Sometimes the gap between the time the photo
was taken and the present becomes excessively long, and the question
of representation and reality is raised. The postmodern philosopher
Jean Baudrillard wrote at length about such
counterfeits,
and their
implications, before the internet was a whisper of what we
know now. Without delving too deep though, my point is that Devotees,
pretenders, and wannabes/transabled people find themselves amidst a
world of false, or at least misleading appearances, and this leads to
a number of quandries and abuses.
The most common abuse we
find is that of devotees who will create fake profiles on social
networking sites, presenting themselves as disabled (often with the
aid of stolen photos), to gain the trust of disabled people, steal
their photos, and perpetuate the cycle of abuse. This is problematic
and widespread, though there is a problem here of how to classify
this behavior and its perpetrators. Is it pretending?
The
definition of pretending I have been working with is this,
“Pretenders are driven to pretend not by any outside incentive, but
by the act itself.” Pretending thus is
autotelic, to use
a technical term. It is an act performed as an end in itself. The
devotee who creates a deliberately fake profile to lure the disabled
into their gaze is thus
not a pretender, but rather a
coercive
devotee.
Devoteeism, like literally every other sexual kink, thought, and emotional
state, hurts no other person until it is in some way acted upon.
While there is ample room for argument about how devotees may act
upon their feelings, there is none here. This is just as coercive and
damaging as a voyeur or exhibitionist.
Wannabes/Transabled
(W/T) – There are
two words in contemporary parlance to describe this group of people.
Originally, they were called wannabes, though eventually Sean from
Transabled.org felt that this did not adequately describe his
condition, and thus he created his website. Here I must digress
slightly...
I
have seen the claim raised that the used of the prefix “trans-”
by the transabled amounts to “cultural appropriation” of the
larger trans* community. In many ways this is based on a poor
understanding of the situation, though I can't say I blame
transpeople for the misunderstanding. You'd have to be a dedicated
reader of Transabled.org to catch Sean brining this up, but he is a
longstanding member of the trans* community. He enjoys
cross-dressing, and insofar as he created the term to clarify his
situation, and he is to some degree a gender variant individual, it
makes these already flimsy claims of appropriation more difficult to
advance.
Getting
back on topic though, people identifying as Transabled are
indistinguishable from wannabes. What is different is not their
pathology but rather how they articulate their feelings. “Wannabe”
is a crude and simplistic term coined long ago and it in many ways
misses the mark, yet despite this you will still find some people who
prefer this term to Transabled.
There
is an interesting phenomenon called Capgras' Delusion
which has led to a lot of interesting speculation as of late. The
patient, usually suffering from a traumatic brain injury
damaging the section of the brain which maps their body, will find
themselves utterly disavowing a certain body part. Specifically,
there was one case where a man with this delusion swore that his left
arm was not his own, but was some sort of counterfeit and demanded
that it be removed.
It is here that the famous neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran found
something of interest. We know that “errors” and “deformations”
of all sorts occur as a child is being produced in the womb. These
occur everywhere. The are genetic “errors” like
Fragile X Syndrome, and “deformations” of the central nervous
system like Spina Bifida. There are also similar “errors” in the
development of the brain, and it would seem ridiculous to suggest
that the area of the brain which maps the body would be somehow
specially immune to the vicissitudes of human development.
The condition described by just such a congenital disorder is
Body Integrity Identity Disorder (BIID), and I'm sure you can imagine how controversial the issue is. This is
especially true considering that BIID it arises in the context
created by the previous three categories.
I would argue that not every person who experiences feelings of
desiring a disability has BIID, even if they think they do. What is
different about BIID as I understand it, is that unlike the other
categories it is a bit easier to point to. Perhaps it can only be
confirmed if an autopsy is done, though it is still something which
has a more easily verifiable physical presence as opposed to feelings
or memories which may exist only as a synaptic neurochemical current
traversing the brain. However, because so little is known about BIID,
I will avoid saying anymore.
* * *
What's really tragic is that despite the length of this
piece and the tedious detail I've rendered the subject in, there is
still more to cover. I have written about the three common categories
and touched on some of the possible overlaps to give you an idea of
how much more complex it may be. I have made a venn diagram which
should help explain the other possible categories,
though it must be understood that even this is shortsighted.
D = Devotee, P = Pretender, W/T = Wannabe/Transabled
I say these are possible categories because I haven't personally seen people who I would identify as hailing from certain overlapping categories, and more importantly I haven't met anyone who self identifies with many of them either. Also, the notion of someone being both a pretender and transabled gets very tricky. Transsexual people have often claimed that they do not cross dress, but rather dress to match their true selves. It's not hard to see how such an argument could arise with transabled people.
Devotees, Pretenders, and Wannabes do not exist in a
vacuum, there are many other overlaps with other fetish communities.
I have run across devotee furry art before, and devotee-pretenders who were also
interested in robot porn. If you scan through most devotee porn vendors' back catalogs
you'll find plenty of instances of models fulfilling what can only be fan
requests for plenty of other fetishes, some relatively common, some
quite obscure.
Often
when considering any of these categories and the people who inhabit
them, there are attempts to understand why
they feel and act the way they do. People in these categories often
undergo a similar, and sometimes more distressing version of that
experience. There
are many common theories, such as a deeper unconscious need for, or
attraction to, the special attention surrounding disability, or some
level of excitement derived from playing with an imbalanced power
dynamic. These rarely prove effective because too often there is a
belief that one or two of these can explain away the whole of DPW/T
behavior, though, as has been covered, when looking at human
behavior, especially an individual, there is frequently a plurality of causes.
Regarding causes
and motivations, if I desire to write truly then I may only speak for
myself. I have been to multiple mental health professionals employing
a variety of approaches in an attempt to understand myself. One of
the most prominent common threads held by all of them has been a
focus less on causes and cures, and more on how to accept yourself as you are, and live a healthy and fulfilling life. Perhaps others could benefit from adopting such a strategy.