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

[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.

[RoosterDance]

I generally agree with Not Forever, and I think you're just thinking too hard about this.

Your point can be summed up by saying "People gravitate towards things they like." But liking something doesn't necessarily mean you want to treat that thing with love and care. Such as in the examples you stated, and indeed there are MAPs and I'm sure even objectophiles who are not inclined to show such care to the subject of their desire. People like them tend to not end up on forums like this.

In any case, there's just too much individual variation and too many other factors at play to be making broad sweeping generalizations like this.

[anarchist of love]

Perhaps this has already been said but i was remembering that all these terms ("paraphilias") are reductionist attempts made by one of the tentacles of 'The Misery Loves Company', for the purpose of neocolonial alienation and projects related. Reducing and subtracting whole indigenous excellences that are to no longer be remembered by the populace. Namely, our collective POWER SPOTS in the context of meaningful co'mmmmm'unity, are targeted.

But your basic idea fits with mine, i think. The 'innate connection', that which we've collectively buried within all of our Learned Social Armorings, etcetera. Though no longer viewed as valid or valuable because of these off-balance hierarchies coming in and, in the meta, i think, seeking meaningful challenge that can surprise their ideological convictions; a sort of SYMPTOM DANCE is them reflecting the horrors of their "elite" lives (materially rich but deeply poor in psychological balance!). And combat (at home and abroad; at home in monogamous marriages, constantly fighting!). And what else?

Some thoughts for you to feel free to chew on. Thanks for the opportunity to share!!