Definition: Devoteeism/Devotee

[Deleted]

I'm not sure if I'd be of much help but I think it's a great idea. If there is something I can do, don't hesitate to ask.

[Experimentalist]

I think it's a good idea as well. In the process we might also consider adopting a new word completely because the word devotee already refers to various religious devotions etc, and these are likely to be more mainstream for some time and therefore it will be difficult to 'own' the term. Ideally we would construct a new word that can be searched uniquely in Google.

An objective definition sounds good. I think a useful end goal is to get a page on Wikipedia that describes it because a) the editors there are known to be objective b) makes it quite official on the internets and c) spreads the word broadly.

I do see one problem with the plan though, namely that every dev should be able to read it and be comfortable with it. That's a laudable aim but it's a circular idea. Defining it more clearly necessarily includes some and excludes others. Those who are excluded will be unhappy. But that's OK right, because they are not devs. Trouble is who decides who gets a vote in that? Do we use the old or new definition...

First big question is, if we invent a new word based on the views here on PD, should we limit it to people who are attracted to men with disabilities and exclude people attracted to women with disabilities? That would simplify things in some ways and complicate others. It does seem natural if we are basing it on the views in this forum that are naturally biased in that direction. Perhaps a separate sub-term, the way lesbian is a sub-term of gay. I would suggest devwomen/devchicks/devgirls but that already excludes men who like disabled men and includes women who like disabled women... See? It gets complicated

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion

[gshotta]

Acrotomophilia I came across this word a lot when I first heard of devs

[gshotta]

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.myhandicap.com/en/information-disability-chonical-illness/relationships-and-sexuality/sexuality-and-disability/acrotomophilia/&ved=0ahUKEwjm74irx-TLAhUCPRQKHbBDCxMQFggjMAE&usg=AFQjCNFCzbpRKCcVbsfepdJa3-_Y0EIQtw&sig2=qiINuaa0OAcMFSaZlEJj6A

[Experimentalist]

I think I would stay away from any word ending in philia as it has mostly bad connotations. I don't see why we need an old-fashioned Latin construction. Better with something more modern Any branding experts on the board?!

I agree that defining disability is a huge job, but I don't think it's a job we need to take on for the sake of this discussion. We simply have to clarify which type of disability we are referring to. Example wording would be:

"devism-term is an attraction to people with certain types of disabilities, specifically x, y and z."

That saves us from having to define the entire scope of disability but still helps to clarify. You see this for example in commercial contracts where the first few pages are definitions of terms. They are not general definitions to be used in the wider world, just clarifications for that document, like defining a working week to be Monday to Friday.

[Maurine]

-philia is Greek, not Latin. I like words derived from Greek and Latin. Paraphilia is a broader term that includes devoteism among many other "atypical" sexual preferences. There is no consensus where unusual interests end and "atypical" ones begin. I have sometimes seen it described as a disease, which I could find insulting, but then, it doesn't hold any meaning. Homosexuality used to be regarded as sick until not long ago, too, but we aren't forced to be "treated" for our attraction and are legally free to be in a relationship with those we're attracted to.
I don't think there can be a clearcut definition like the ones you have in maths that describes all of us. One could just say a dev is someone who is attracted to certain people with some type of disability, but if you want to be more precise, people will always disagree. From my observations here, there are aspects to our attraction that some or many of us share, but none that all of us agree in. One could make a list of traits that many self-identified devs share and if several of them apply to you, you're labelled as a dev. However, I don't feel the need to be put in a box like that when there are in fact a fluent passage.

[ons]

Great idea, Malibu. But yes it can get complicated because there is just too much to consider in defining what a dev is. Some of us are just in it for sexual reasons, some need a specific type of man in their lives in order to move on, while some are attracted simply because (and this is for lack of a better term) - most guys are just amazing and inspiring in what they can/have achieve/d inspite of their disabilities.

In this age of technology, I think it would be quite helpful for women to connect/understand what a dev is, if they are still in the process of realizing/understanding their feelings. It's pretty damn hard when you can't put a finger on it. It's also not like people talk about it freely.

If you're going to start this ambitious project, how about getting starting a poll on what the ladies on here think their definition is.

[Emma]

I think a poll is a good idea. You definition does not describe me as a dev, it's way more than a personal interest and more like a sexuality. I've always defined a devotee as someone sexually turned on by disability.

[polar]

Mar 30, 2016 22:14:56 GMT -5 Emma said:

I think a poll is a good idea. You definition does not describe me as a dev its way more than a personal interest and more like a sexuality. I've always defined a devotee as someone sexually turned on by disability.

Yes I agree with this. This is exactly how I personally identify as a dev; I am turned on by men/women with SCI. However, not every dev on here would identify with this definition.

Personally, I don't really care about what the definition of 'devoteeism' is, as I don't really believe in labels. Like gender fluidity, sexuality cannot be put into categories, as everyone is different. Having a label and a definition makes it easier to explain to people who don't understand, or who want to understand, but I guess it doesn't bother me, as I don't feel a need to put a label on my own sexuality, and I don't feel the need to justify it to other people. It is what it is.

[Deleted]

I don't see a problem with just wanting casual sex. Yes, I'm ultimately looking for a relationship but I have needs like anyone else.

We're all adults here and I'll just say it, I'm down with just having a purely sexual relationship with a dev. Why not?

[Mets]

Apr 1, 2016 6:42:46 GMT -5 malibu said:

Experiment:


2 female persons: Malibu (DEV); Mona (Non-DEV)



I   Malibu + AB = X

II  Malibu + PWD = X + sex

III Mona + AB = X + sex



From II and III
->

Malibu + PWD = Mona + AB.


 (X+sex)


QED.


Our relationships are the same. Casual, romantical, open, unlabeled and free (I prefer this version btw), marital....whatever relationship might exist. 

This is the part where all the Brazillian PWDs are wishing they paid more attention to algebra