A paraphile has an innate connection to whatever they are attracted to

[Objectophile]

I have an outlandish theory that paraphilias such as pedophilia, objectophilia and zoophilia are not just sexualities. They are unique ways in which one can form bonds. First, let me preface with my classification of those paraphilias. There are paraphilias in which one is aroused by certain actions (diaper wearing, crying, piss); and paraphilias where one is attracted to a state of being. Minor attraction and objectophilia fall under the latter category. From then on, I will refer exclusively to that latter category of paraphiles.

I have read BlueRibbon's essays which describe that MAPs have "higher empathy towards minors, a unique connection with them and hence prefer to bond with them over adults". As an objectophile, I feel the same way towards favoured objects. For example, I feel a deep pain in my chest if I watch a video of a pen getting destroyed. Even though we have 2 different orientations that happen to fall under the 'paraphilia' umbrella, our emotional experiences are the same.

BlueRibbon has also acknowledged that heterosexual men don't desire to platonically bond with women, while MAPs desire that with children. From that observation, I theorise that paraphiles have an affinity towards whatever they are attracted to. (I am unsure if zoophiles and necrophiles apply because I have never met either of them. Maybe I will post in zoophile forums in the future.) This affinity elevates paraphilia from a mere sexual orientation to a unique ability to form connections. IMO, other sexual orientations don't have that affinity paraphiles have. Heterosexual women keep their distance from platonic male friends. Effeminate gay men are notorious for befriending women. Of course, I could be wrong because lesbians do have an affinity for other women. Masculine gay men and bisexuals are omitted because I have little knowledge about them, hence I acknowledge my theory may be bullshit lol.

BlueRibbon's statements about MAPs working with children supports my theory. I relate to the exact same sentiment as an objectophile. When someone works, they want to contribute and give back to society. I presume a MAP wants to work with children because they want to give back the appreciation they have for children. I wanted to become a craftsman and produce more of the objects I cherish. The particular objects I love are falling into obscurity (as they are old-fashioned), hence I wanted to produce and sell them to the public so they aren't forgotten. I see it as a duty towards those objects, like how BlueRibbon said that minor attraction is a "mentoring orientation". We have that selflessness when it comes to the things we love.

Other sexual orientations don't have that selflessness. Heterosexual men seldom work in jobs that cater to women (there are few male midwives). If they do, it is usually for a paycheck with little regard to their women clients (the term 'medical misogyny' has been created to describe how male doctors and gynecologists usually mistreat their women patients). Another job that caters for women is fashion design. While it is true that the industry is male-dominated (let's assume they are heterosexual), there are many scandals regarding the mistreatment of fashion models, mostly women. For instance, models have been sexually assaulted, financially exploited or subjected to unhealthy diets. For heterosexual women, the example job I could think of is sex work as the customer base is predominantly men. The workers I was friends with are in it for the money and attention, which is perfectly fine. Yet, they denigrate their customers as 'pay pigs' and 'losers', with more crude insults which I will omit. They don't cherish their clientele; the exact opposite of BlueRibbon claiming that MAP mentors cherish their mentees. I don't have any knowledge on gay men, so I am unsure if they display that selflessness towards their fellow brothers. Lesbians are the exception because they advocated for women's rights via feminism. Again, my theory may be bullshit because I have no formal knowledge. Only heterosexual orientations confirm my theory, and I may be cherry-picking my examples. Nevertheless, a pro-MAP argument can be inferred from my observation. MAPs are often accused of exploiting children, yet the (heterosexual) male-dominated fashion industry does the exact same thing towards women.

Finally, it seems normies sexualise a paraphiles' unique affinity. MAPs are barred from working with children because people assume they cannot control their sexual thoughts towards them. Objectophiles are privileged as they can claim that their orientation is an intense hobby and be allowed to interact with objects. That's how I survived. However, there was one Reddit post of someone getting permanently rejected from an airline job interview when he confessed his attraction to planes. Normies sexualise our affinities because they are fundamentally incapable of understanding it. They will never understand because they don't have it. Their minds are not used to our framework, so they immediately assume sexual intent as a knee-jerk reaction. I am not sure if they sexualise our connections specifically because our affinity closely resembles sexual attraction (in their POV), or if the human instinct is to assume nefarious intent.

I think my theory may be outlandish because the MAP community says that minor attraction is just like any other sexual orientation. However, I think paraphilic attractions are more than that. They have unique connections that other normophilic sexual orientations do not have. I also acknowledge that my theory may not be helpful in MAP activism because an objectophile created it, and may not accurately represent minor attraction. What do y'all think about my theory?

[Not Forever]

In itself, I find the topic interesting, but I think people’s sexuality and personalities are too messy to draw such clear-cut lines. One could explain the phenomenon of more self-centered heterosexual behavior simply by the fact that heterosexuals are an enormous majority, and can potentially live in a state of abundance of people they’re attracted to, which might make them more detached, less devoted, and so on.

Or maybe it could simply be a matter of interaction: a heterosexual man may have had more negative experiences with his partners, developing a more distant attitude. Or maybe this attitude could be linked to monogamy rather than heterosexuality. An attitude that prevents them from unintentionally creating new relationships when others are not willing to have them. (So a result of both monogamy and the abundance of potential partners.)

In short, I can think of many explanations for the phenomenon, which might even be only apparent. Working with children is very specific, for example; MAPs are few, and among those few, maybe only certain types of people end up seeking that specific job. In other words, a combination of factors that results in only particularly positive people, when they are MAPs, taking that job. While those with more negative attitudes tend to stay farther away from it. Meanwhile, in other jobs, different kinds of people may end up there—perhaps even those with less specific interest toward one particular sex. Not everyone is heterosexual in the same way. In fact, I honestly believe that everyone has some form of non-conventional sexuality; it’s just that for some people it isn’t strong enough to be labeled, or it’s so common that it becomes part of the shared idea of what a sexual orientation is.

If we want, there’s also the cultural factor.
Taking care of objects is something present in our (I’m generalizing) culture, even if it’s not necessarily common in practice—but when there’s an object of interest (usually a car or jewelry), people take care of it. In the same way, culturally there’s this idea of taking care of those who are younger; if we want, the caregiving aspect can itself become a kind of fetish for someone, drawing on a certain imagery.

In short, I find the topic interesting, but I think there’s too much variation, and I believe that what we see—what we perceive—is due to other motivations rather than to paraphilias or sexual orientations in themselves.

It could also simply be a biological factor, based on how male and female psychology tend on average to differ, or simply a matter of testosterone. Or again, it could be cultural (in the sense that even a gay man—perhaps one who presents himself in a more effeminate way—may be influenced by it, maybe tending to conform to his own stereotype. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy: perhaps because of television, women are friendlier toward gay men and vice versa).

As for the discussion about airplanes and so on… in my opinion it’s mainly sex-phobia, which yes, concerns everything non-conventional, but also heterosexuality if it’s expressed in a way that the other person finds unpleasant. To me, people are sex-phobic; they see sex as dirty, as something perverse, and they find a kind of public asexuality more acceptable. And the further one gets from this asexuality (starting from monogamous heterosexuality > homosexuality > and so on), the more negatively it is seen. If the interest is toward something related to one’s own job, then it becomes the worst possible combination.

In my view, men aren’t forbidden from becoming gynecologists simply because there are too many of them, it’s too common, and it would be seen too much as discrimination… but it wouldn’t surprise me if it happened; I think sex-phobia is gradually becoming accepted even in the heterosexual sphere, though with various rhetorics and justifications.

[Objectophile]

I have forgotten to link the two articles by BlueRibbon which my theory is based on.

https://www.brianribbon.com/home/why-ev ... h-children

https://www.brianribbon.com/short-takes ... rientation

[Objectophile]

In itself, I find the topic interesting, but I think people’s sexuality and personalities are too messy to draw such clear-cut lines. One could explain the phenomenon of more self-centered heterosexual behavior simply by the fact that heterosexuals are an enormous majority, and can potentially live in a state of abundance of people they’re attracted to, which might make them more detached, less devoted, and so on.

Or maybe it could simply be a matter of interaction: a heterosexual man may have had more negative experiences with his partners, developing a more distant attitude. Or maybe this attitude could be linked to monogamy rather than heterosexuality. An attitude that prevents them from unintentionally creating new relationships when others are not willing to have them. (So a result of both monogamy and the abundance of potential partners.)

I sort of agree about monogamy affecting all of this. The exclusivity that monogamous people live by hinders them from forming deeper connections with platonic friends. Or more aptly, removes that desire altogether. I myself am a non-monogamous objecto (harem-style), so I relate.

If we want, there’s also the cultural factor.
Taking care of objects is something present in our (I’m generalizing) culture, even if it’s not necessarily common in practice—but when there’s an object of interest (usually a car or jewelry), people take care of it. In the same way, culturally there’s this idea of taking care of those who are younger; if we want, the caregiving aspect can itself become a kind of fetish for someone, drawing on a certain imagery.

When I care for an object, I do it out of love and adoration; as opposed to maintenance or profit. Of course, non-objecto people can care for objects with love, but the phenomenon is intensified with objectos. I wanted to become a craftsman so I could literally create a family of objects; it was rooted in familial love. When I express this to others, they look at me strangely lol. Familial love, to them, is reserved for the sentient and breathing. In short, caring for objects is generally normalised; but once the amount of care exceeds a certain point, people will think it is abnormal. A similar statement could be made for minors, but I don't want to speak over MAPs.

In short, I find the topic interesting, but I think there’s too much variation, and I believe that what we see—what we perceive—is due to other motivations rather than to paraphilias or sexual orientations in themselves.

I have to agree here... Perhaps I'm making paraphilia a big part of one's life, including my own, when it doesn't need to be. I am recently embracing what it means to be a paraphile, so I may be giving my sexuality a disproportionate amount of attention. I may spout crazy theories as a result

As for the discussion about airplanes and so on… in my opinion it’s mainly sex-phobia, which yes, concerns everything non-conventional, but also heterosexuality if it’s expressed in a way that the other person finds unpleasant. To me, people are sex-phobic; they see sex as dirty, as something perverse, and they find a kind of public asexuality more acceptable. And the further one gets from this asexuality (starting from monogamous heterosexuality > homosexuality > and so on), the more negatively it is seen. If the interest is toward something related to one’s own job, then it becomes the worst possible combination.

In my view, men aren’t forbidden from becoming gynecologists simply because there are too many of them, it’s too common, and it would be seen too much as discrimination… but it wouldn’t surprise me if it happened; I think sex-phobia is gradually becoming accepted even in the heterosexual sphere, though with various rhetorics and justifications.

I think sex-phobia is especially prevalent in corporate culture. You are right that it includes heterosexuality. From what my ex-friends in the industry told me, employers uniformly reject employees who are former sex workers; heterosexual or not. I think some of the sex-phobia is legal liability and brand image. Hiring a former sex worker may damage the company's image, in the opinion of sex-phobic people. Hiring a person who has an (emotional or sexual) attraction to an aspect of their job may expose them to legal liability in the future. People mistakenly believe attraction = action, so they assume any MAP/objectophile wants to fuck any child/object they see. Those actions are interpreted as sex crimes (one CSA and the other public indecency), which opens up legal liability for the corporation. Now, I think corporate culture is seeping into everyday life hence the sex-phobia is spreading.

I think we need to recontextualise our attractions. People think being attracted to something means we want to use it for pleasure. Instead, I think of it as, "Being attracted to something means I have the ability to form a deep bond with it. Then I want to deepen our bond through pleasing activities." I am being vague about 'pleasing activities' because it could be non-sexual (platonic), amorous or sexual. However, there is a risk of sanitising paraphilia (for societal conformity) if we choose to recontextualise it. I have experienced it myself where MH professionals assume my attraction to objects is simply an autistic special interest, instead of a paraphilia. I appreciate that they are giving me the benefit of the doubt, but my attraction is sexual besides being a genuine interest. I felt they were stripping away my sexual feelings so I can be a more palatable patient to them. I wouldn't want to sanitise MAPs' sexualities as I experienced it myself. That is exactly the sex-phobia you are describing.