|
Post by lisa on Mar 21, 2013 3:49:59 GMT -5
Do devs prefer the, um, subjects of their devness to be sexually experienced? I can just speak for me here. I struggled a lot with answering this question for myself. I have known (most times subconsciously) about my devness for a long time, but I never really considered it a "must-be" in a relationship. After dating a couple of AB guys though I realized there was a pattern in that they didn't manage to really arouse me when it came to sexual stuff although I mostly liked them much on the non-sexual level. But this attraction was one of friend- not relationship. I can't answer the question with being 100% sure about it, but I guess I am on the higher spectrum of the devness-scale. Oh, and there I come up with another question related to the devness scale... Do you think the severity of the preferred disability and the position on the devness scale correlate in some sense (the more severe the disability the more likely the dev will seek it out in a relationship)?
|
|
|
Post by Kid A on Mar 21, 2013 4:17:32 GMT -5
Do devs prefer the, um, subjects of their devness to be sexually experienced? Do you think the severity of the preferred disability and the position on the devness scale correlate in some sense (the more severe the disability the more likely the dev will seek it out in a relationship)? Lisa, this is a great question, but as far as I know, based on what I have read about people's preferences on this board, I don't think there is a correlation. For example, I've read that a person is really into severe CP but doesn't think a relationship would be do-able, or at least has yet to have a relationship with someone with a disability. I could be wrong, but intuitively, there not necessarily being a correlation makes sense. It's possible that you're more likely to be on the higher end of the spectrum and maybe there are fewer exceptions, such as the one I mentioned? I guess we'll have to see what others have to say. Thank you for asking! I look forward to hearing what others have to say.
|
|
|
Post by devogirl on Mar 21, 2013 8:32:47 GMT -5
Do devs prefer the, um, subjects of their devness to be sexually experienced? I assume you mean, do we look for guys who have had lots of partners before us? I never made this a rule, but I did notice a pattern. Disabled guys I met who were in their 30s or 40s who had very little experience with sex or relationships usually had a congenital disability and a very sheltered upbringing. As a result, they were somewhat socially stunted, and my attempts to have a relationship were disastrous. Not so much because they were bad at sex but because they didn't know how to behave in an adult relationship. Turning red in the face and yelling "I need to know right now when we're going to have sex!" on the second date is not acceptable behavior for a 40 year old man. It doesn't have to be that way! Plenty of guys with congenital disabilities are not like that. It's all about social skills. In my, ahem, extensive experience, being good or bad at pleasing a partner has nothing to do with how many partners you have had. It's all about being attentive and wanting to learn what your partner likes. Some guys think they have to have one special move or technique that they will force on every partner whether she likes it or not, and if not, then it's her fault. Sex doesn't work like that! Everyone likes different things. If you want to be good in bed, ask her what she likes, and pay attention to how she reacts. Anyone can do that.
|
|
|
Post by whoaitsz on Mar 21, 2013 14:29:03 GMT -5
wow. any guy acting like that deserves a c*ck punch.
|
|
|
Post by Emma on Mar 21, 2013 18:31:56 GMT -5
Do you think the severity of the preferred disability and the position on the devness scale correlate in some sense (the more severe the disability the more likely the dev will seek it out in a relationship)? I don't think that is the case Lisa. I think I am 100% dev and guys who are not independent are not really what I am into. Sure there are some more significant disabilities I'm attracted to but I was never interested in making one of those guys my life partner. I am also not sure I agree with the scale of devness. I think some devs are able to incorporate it into their lives and others made different life choices so having a disabled partner is just not possible for various resaons and they keep their dev life separate from day to day life
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2013 18:57:02 GMT -5
I've been thinking about the Dev Scale some more and I think opportunity comes into play too. I didn't even know about devs and become ok with these feeling in myself until nearly 10 years and 2 kids into my relationship. My husband is AB and 100% the person I was supposed to end up with. But I do sometimes wish that I had a better understanding of my feeling back when I was dating. I would have asked out the cute wheeler at the bar instead of spending the evening trying to figure out what was wrong with me (NOTHING WAS WRONG - I know now).
I explore devness in ways that are safe for me and my life.
|
|
|
Post by devogirl on Mar 22, 2013 21:58:19 GMT -5
This concept of the dev scale is bothering me. It seems like such a great, all-inclusive concept, a way to acknowledge that we all have different desires and ways of acting on those desires. But in practice, I see people trying too hard to quantify abstract, shifting ideas, and it becomes a subtle kind of hierarchy. Are you 100% dev, or a 5 or a 10 on the dev scale? What does that even mean? But it feels good to say 10 or 100, right? So I think of myself as 100% dev but I happily married an AB guy, so does that mean I am demoted to 50%? Less devvy than someone who married a wheeler? I don't think so.
This has come up from time to time before you all started calling it a "dev scale"--new members trying to quantify themselves or justify their membership on the board. You don't have to do that. You're a dev, that's enough. Let's keep the healthy idea behind the dev scale--we all have different desires, and those desires can change over time. But it's not a real scale, you don't have to assign a position to yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Kid A on Mar 23, 2013 0:11:01 GMT -5
I agree that "scale" is not an ideal term to use, since it implies the assignment of numbers or values to an amorphous concept. I don't think "scale" and "spectrum" are necessarily equivalent, however. When I used the term "spectrum" I was envisioning it much like a rainbow. Though the different elements on the spectrum have a different appearance, they are caused by the same underlying mechanism (light v. devness). There are no hard edges between the colors, like there are no hard and fast distinctions between "types" devs. There are so many factors that make us who we are or define us as devs. I don't think devs who are with AB SOs are somehow lesser devs. No matter how it manifests in one's life, there aren't elements that elevate one or are diminutive to another. It's like EJ said, sometimes timing and other aspects of one's subjective experience create a not-so-ideal environment for taking one's devness beyond fantasy, dev fiction, flirtation or whathaveyou. Never mind the complicated issue of self-acceptance, devness notwithstanding, or the ebb and flow of devness and identification with one's devness throughout the course of one's lifetime. I agree, DG, there is little value in assigning numbers to or placing boxes around people, let alone their devness or sexuality.
|
|
|
Post by Emma on Mar 23, 2013 0:41:15 GMT -5
This concept of the dev scale is bothering me. It seems like such a great, all-inclusive concept, a way to acknowledge that we all have different desires and ways of acting on those desires. But in practice, I see people trying too hard to quantify abstract, shifting ideas, and it becomes a subtle kind of hierarchy. Are you 100% dev, or a 5 or a 10 on the dev scale? What does that even mean? But it feels good to say 10 or 100, right? So I think of myself as 100% dev but I happily married an AB guy, so does that mean I am demoted to 50%? Less devvy than someone who married a wheeler? I don't think so. This has come up from time to time before you all started calling it a "dev scale"--new members trying to quantify themselves or justify their membership on the board. You don't have to do that. You're a dev, that's enough. Let's keep the healthy idea behind the dev scale--we all have different desires, and those desires can change over time. But it's not a real scale, you don't have to assign a position to yourself. Yes this is mostly what I was trying to say above but was rushing because I was about to go into a class at the gym. I think a lot of new members have a tough time accepting that they are in fact a devotee. They struggle for many reasons; they are dating an AB guy, just found the term devotee and are still learning about it, are also turned on by AB guys, etc. but that doesn't mean we need to assign a scale. In my mind, anyone who is sexually turned by disability is a dev. There are a LOT of other types of women out there who are interested in dating disabled men but they aren't turned on by their disability. These women admire the guys ability to overcome, are interested in being helpers, like unusual bodies, work in the field or whatever but that doesn't make them a dev. When I said I am 100% dev I didn't mean to imply that others are lesser (DG I certainly also think of you as 100% dev ) its just the way my brain works I guess. In fact I was comparing it in my mind to the autism spectrum. I guess I was just using the percentage/number to imply that there isn't a scale or spectrum - no one has autism 100% but I guess you would have had to be in my mind to understand all that from my post above.
|
|
|
Post by devogirl on Mar 23, 2013 0:44:06 GMT -5
Oh no, that wasn't a criticism of you at all. But there is an unfortunate tendency for members here to try to categorize themselves. I've started seeing a lot of posts in the past few days where people try to place themselves somewhere on the "dev scale." Please, let's stop using it in that way. It's really not necessary. No one's judging you!
|
|
|
Post by roger888 on Mar 23, 2013 6:25:29 GMT -5
To find your place within a community,it's only natural that you should want to discover where you stand in relation to the others around you. To determine that by a percentage or a scale of 1 to 100 can too easliy lead to its use in a derogatory sense, if the numbers are usedwithout calibrating it to an agreed description .You can't quanitify something without misinterpretation when many of the subjects are still discovering their identities.
The use of the word "spectrum" earlier in the thread made me smile,because I have always thought of the varied attributes of devoteeism as similar to the spectrum of light (visible & invisible to the naked eye) or the colours in the rainbow,whichever analogy is easier to understand.It's disappointing when I don't see all the colours of the rainbow here,but I realise my sight is imperfect, so I know that beyond reasonable doubt that they exist.
|
|
|
Post by Kid A on Mar 23, 2013 9:36:51 GMT -5
To find your place within a community,it's only natural that you should want to discover where you stand in relation to the others around you. To determine that by a percentage or a scale of 1 to 100 can too easliy lead to its use in a derogatory sense, if the numbers are usedwithout calibrating it to an agreed description .You can't quanitify something without misinterpretation when many of the subjects are still discovering their identities. The use of the word "spectrum" earlier in the thread made me smile,because I have always thought of the varied attributes of devoteeism as similar to the spectrum of light (visible & invisible to the naked eye) or the colours in the rainbow,whichever analogy is easier to understand.It's disappointing when I don't see all the colours of the rainbow here,but I realise my sight is imperfect, so I know that beyond reasonable doubt that they exist. +1! GMTA.
|
|
|
Post by lisa on Mar 23, 2013 14:13:04 GMT -5
I think there are different ideas of how to interpret the possible dev scale. Of course, it is not justified to assume such a scale without any statistic background, so it is just what people heard from other devs, how they view the dev world. When I asked the question I understood the scale in a sense of how much the devness is influencing real life, whether it stays in fantasy and will never be revealed or whether somebody actively looks for a disabled partner and a disabled partner only. I see that this is not the understanding of everybody here. So sorry for any misunderstandings I might have caused.
Another thing on the "new member" topic. I can totally see that a scale contains the danger of categorizing too much. Categorizing is almost never a good thing, because there are always cases that don't fit if you search for them long enough. On the other end I think a lot of people get a bit more confidence or security out of assigning themselves to a category, together with others. And this is getting more secure or confident in an area which normally doesn't lead to confidence in the first place. At least for me (and for many other members as well) it was a great experience to find a place where you belong, because people here belong to the same category, devs. I remember I have been searching the board before joining whether somebody had described similar attractions to mine within the wide range of different preferences found here. Knowing that I am not the only one has contributed to putting me at ease with the attraction.
|
|
nas
Full Member
Posts: 102
Gender: Female
Dev Status: Devotee
|
Post by nas on Mar 23, 2013 15:09:26 GMT -5
My view of the "scale" is that it changes. If someone asked me a year or so ago if I would ever tell anyone (online or in real life) about my devness, I'd say no fucking way. I was sure it was a part of me I'd never share with anyone. Also, given the fact that the city I live is in no way accessible, I was pretty sure I'd never get to meet a wheeler, let alone start a relationship with one. Flash forward to now, and not only I'm starting to share my feelings online, I'd also be okay with people knowing in real life (before, I was absolutely terrified about someone finding out, even before I knew it was sexual). Also, since a lot of people here said how they met their partners online, I realized that it doesn't mean I have no chance of ever meeting a wheeler I like. Sorry for the rant, but I just meant to say that the devness scale isn't fixed, I'm sure it depends a lot on circumstances around us...
|
|
gaydev
New Member
Posts: 45
Gender: Male
Dev Status: Devotee
Relationship Status: Single
|
Post by gaydev on Mar 23, 2013 15:48:27 GMT -5
If I had to put a number on my DEV scale it would be 6. But if I had to put a number on my straight-gay scale it would be 10. I can't imagine ever enjoying sex with a woman but have had very satisfying long term relationships with AB men. My preference would be that my next and maybe final partner be with a DA man where it was more than just chemistry so it could last forever.
|
|