|
Post by €squire on Apr 22, 2008 19:56:56 GMT -5
I stumbled upon this site a couple of years ago, and have checked in from time to time, finding the perspectives of participating members quite interesting. I proudly view myself as a quad (C4-C5), an open-minded yet opinionated and well-read individual, and a very hard-working, confident, financially secure man. I am an attorney by training, having earned every bit of the title post-injury.
Having lurked about the board for quite some time, I find myself feeling comfortable enough at this point to seek further enlightenment. The dev mentality, as expressed on other sites, is certainly less than flattering (most likely the male persuasion). Still, I find the phenomenon incredibly intriguing.
I have been in several very fulfilling, serious relationships -- some of which in retrospect involved confused, yet beautiful and loving devs. I have struggled for many years with my own identity, my particular disability, and whether a sensible woman could or should "settle" for and with a man such as myself, living daily beyond the conventions of the norm, fighting like a dog to claim what I believe is mine, call it "dignity".
So here I boldly make my first post. Realizing that my life cannot be captured in a few lines of text, I seek to understand and to be understood, nothing more. I could find a relationship very easily, but I am seeking something more than the superficial, more than the drama and more than she who seeks to quickly climb the social ladder.
The honesty and intellect of this board is very refreshing. The more I read, the more I want to know -- question: is it the reality of a man's struggle against the world that you find sensual, or is it the fantasy of finding your integral place within his daily struggle that is at the core of your unconscious desires?
|
|
|
Post by BA on Apr 22, 2008 21:18:45 GMT -5
I have struggled for many years with my own identity, my particular disability, and whether a sensible woman could or should "settle" for and with a man such as myself, living daily beyond the conventions of the norm, fighting like a dog to claim what I believe is mine, call it "dignity". I LOVE smart men. What a fabulous opening post. Welcome to the board. ;D In what ways would a woman have to be not-sensible, wacky or otherwise out of her right mind in order to have a serious and fufulling relationship with you? Do you feel that you are not a person worthy of this sort of intimate bond or have the 'devs' you have met in the past been confused and struggling women with a myriad of emotional issues that they have yet to come to terms with? Have you just been in a relationship with said 'devs' or have they also functioned as a personal care attendant for you? Esquire asks this incredibly great question: "is it the reality of a man's struggle against the world that you find sensual, or is it the fantasy of finding your integral place within his daily struggle that is at the core of your unconscious desires?" It is both and it is neither. Ask 10 devs and you will probably get 10 equally interesting but different answers. I think to some extent many devs, for whatever reason, identify on a very deep and strong level with your struggle against the world. How we came to be in such a place, at such an early age is completely unknown to me. I do know that there is some sense of identification and an understanding that transcends personal experience. How that 'understanding' got there in the first place, is the ultimate question.
|
|
|
Post by faith on Apr 22, 2008 22:19:51 GMT -5
Esquire- First, welcome. It is good to have you join us. I agree with AB about the post.
"The more I read, the more I want to know -- question: is it the reality of a man's struggle against the world that you find sensual, or is it the fantasy of finding your integral place within his daily struggle that is at the core of your unconscious desires?"
Given the two choices above I would go with the second. Although I don't like the word "struggle" (it brings a guilty feeling of sorts) being an integral part of that would be, I don't know if this is the right word... but sensual on some level. Maybe the word would be fulfilling or a completeness. I don't know if there is a single word to describe it.
You may have read, since you have been here a while, that most of us devs have known this since we were young. I would be included in that. And as I envisioned my life since I was young, it always included a wheeler. So.. .ya... the second part for me.
And.. welcome.
|
|
|
Post by laurasweetou on Apr 22, 2008 23:01:22 GMT -5
Well, AB you always beat me to the answers and you are so elegant my dear friend. I agree, think, and feel all that you said. Welcome to the boards as a "poster", that's very brave. I am really looking forward to more from you.
|
|
|
Post by dolly on Apr 25, 2008 11:45:17 GMT -5
i'm not entirely sure i understand what you are asking exactly, but my first instinct is to answer... both? the word struggle doesn't sit well with me. kinda makes me cringe. i guess from a dev perspective i like to think of it more as extra effort or an alternative approach or strategy. but there is something about overcoming obstacles (physical or attitudinal) or inventing new ways of accomplishing things that is very appealing. and to be somehow involved in that in an integral way would be something i would definitely be drawn to. welcome to the board, esquire. and i echo the sentiments of the above posters who expressed their appreciation of your informative and intelligent first post. i also agree with what they've said in their previous responses.
|
|
|
Post by Claire on Apr 28, 2008 7:20:22 GMT -5
The more I read, the more I want to know -- question: is it the reality of a man's struggle against the world that you find sensual, or is it the fantasy of finding your integral place within his daily struggle that is at the core of your unconscious desires? Welcome, Esquire. I've pondered long over this question of yours, as on first reading, my instinct was to say neither. The real answer came to me immediately but I didn't want to post it, as it's not terribly flattering. But truth is truth and I am who I am, and devness is beyond my control. I don't believe that either question has anything to do with devoteeism. Yes, a devotee can and does feel these. But so can a non-devotee. Admiration for a man's struggle against the world, and finding this sensual, and wanting to find one's place within his struggle, are not feelings that are reserved for devotees alone. Any woman can feel these feelings for a wheeler. That doesn't make her a devotee. Devoteeism is more basic...and dare I say it, more base...than this. Devoteeism at its core is a physical attraction. What makes me a devotee is the reaction of arousal and desire that I experience when I see atrophied legs, or hands. It's the sheer physical beauty that I find in the obviously disabled body. It's about your physical form and my physical reaction to it. It's nothing more than this. Yes, I can and do feel higher, more worthy feelings in conjunction with my devoteeism. But those are not what what sets me apart from other women and gives me the label "devotee". They're what make me a decent and human devotee with a conscience.
|
|
|
Post by €squire on Apr 30, 2008 20:25:50 GMT -5
Let me first say that I am absolutely in awe of you ladies. If only men -- and most women for that matter -- would put a fraction of their time and energy into unvarnished introspection as you clearly do on a daily basis, the human race would solve a lot of its problems in very short order. The depth and sincerity of your answers is telling, and I for one applaud your ability and willingness to honestly share so much of yourselves.
To say that I am intrigued by your dev-ness would be an understatement. In response to AB, my ego and corresponding self-worth are very much intact, so much so that it has hindered relationships to the degree that I feel conflicted about giving my heart and soul completely to one that ascribes to the fantastical, to anything less than the ideal given the opportunity, to my present circumstance as the object of her eternal love and devotion. The old saying, "I would never join a club that would have me as a member" comes to mind. Perhaps the reality is that I am honestly so conceited that I cannot fathom falling in love with a woman laboring under my daily struggle; judge me if you will. And yes, I use the word struggle aptly.
It is just that I want so much out of life, perhaps too much for the healthy psyche; call me a perfectionist. I have worked hard to earn a position in life that I sometimes would happily relinquish if only to escape the expectations. Yet my ego drives me forward, and I am sincerely thankful for everything that yields me the societal respect and financial security that enables my mind to rest easy each night, even the disability that I shall never accept.
The experience of being treated as less than human by the aides at the rehabilitation center immediately following my injury has precluded me ever being intimately involved with a PCA, distinguishing business and pleasure as a matter of fact. Still, AB poses a somewhat cathartic question in asking about the emotional states of the wonderful women who have previously captured my heart, some that I now believe firmly to have been devs. They were indeed possessed of a conflicted, sometimes confused nature, for whatever reason, and constantly needed reassurance from every source that they were "good enough." Guilt seemed to plague their very existence. If only some of them would have known the resources of your good company, they could have identified and come to terms with matters that obviously troubled their conscience.
Claire provides the most clinical and unselfishly honest characterization of her feelings, at least to my newly found understanding of the core of your desires and fantasies. The heart of my question was whether your sexual identity, enlisting as it does an intimate relationship with a particular type of disability, is founded upon the real or perceived character attributes of the idealized "wheeler," or is it rooted simply in the faceless disability. All of you answered very well, and very honestly, and I thank you for it. If I understand correctly, you identify with the disability itself, at least initially, even though it must necessarily be accompanied by conventional attributes of attraction such as you would require of any man.
Does this identification lead you, in your opinions, to objectify your love attraction (the idealized disability) at the expense of the individual to whom it is attached? More specifically, does your gradual development of a real emotional identity with the individual betray your ultimate desire -- the disability that they themselves so despise?
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Apr 30, 2008 23:55:55 GMT -5
Interesting point of view, reminds me of a conversation I had with someone one night - I couldn't appreciate what they saw, because I couldn't see out of their eyes...
|
|
|
Post by Claire on May 1, 2008 8:48:33 GMT -5
Guilt seemed to plague their very existence. If only some of them would have known the resources of your good company, they could have identified and come to terms with matters that obviously troubled their conscience. That sounds very much like me, and I have yet to come to terms with it after two years of reading and posting. But it *has* helped, much. I don't think I will ever get over it. Exactly, at least for me. Unfortunately I can't answer this, as I have never had a relationship with a wheeler. I have formed friendships with wheelers and I can honestly say that they were not objectified. Note that my interest in wheelers is twofold, as not only am I a devotee but I also have BIID with a desire for paraplegia. This fact also leads me to crave contact with wheelers. My friendships (and friendly acquaintances) are based on mutual compatibility, intellectual interest and filial affection. The fact of their disability might be what brought us together in the first place, in that we met here, or some other forum, and it might have even led me to make the first private contact as well. But the friendship formed (or didn't form, as the case may be) based on much more than disability. Of course, this doesn't really answer your question regarding romantic relationships, but I can truly report that I do not objectify people with disabilities. Wow, excellent quote, Jason. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by BA on May 3, 2008 9:58:23 GMT -5
Does this identification lead you, in your opinions, to objectify your love attraction (the idealized disability) at the expense of the individual to whom it is attached? More specifically, does your gradual development of a real emotional identity with the individual betray your ultimate desire -- the disability that they themselves so despise? In my case I must say emphatically absolutely not. The disability does not at any time become a separate entity from the person to whom it belongs. It is part of who they are. As emotional attachment becomes closer, it becomes just that.... closer. The fact of the disability does certainly enhance some of the sexual aspects of the realtionship, but for me, does not change the overall bond or emotional attachment. I believe ALL romantic realtionships go through some kind of honeymoon stage at some point. Some people call it NEW RELATIONSHIP EXCITEMENT and this is generally the stage where fantasy exceeds reality, because, let's face it, you just really don't know the person yet. When this phase has passed comes the real test of reality. A relationship should not fall apart unless there is valid reason for it to falter (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the presence or absence of disability) and everything to do with the emotional state of both partners. No, my ultimate desire has never been betrayed by the mere fact of getting to know someone, unless you wish to count the people that I just didn't like as 'people'. At that point, everything gets betrayed.
|
|
|
Post by faith on May 4, 2008 16:54:04 GMT -5
"Does this identification lead you, in your opinions, to objectify your love attraction (the idealized disability) at the expense of the individual to whom it is attached?"
I am having a hard time with this question because of the word "attached". That word assumes that if something is "attached" it can also be "un-attached"... and in the case of SCI, clearly it can not. I think it is just one package. So in some ways the question is a hypothetical one, at least for me.
|
|
|
Post by dolly on May 5, 2008 20:50:11 GMT -5
Does this identification lead you, in your opinions, to objectify your love attraction (the idealized disability) at the expense of the individual to whom it is attached? More specifically, does your gradual development of a real emotional identity with the individual betray your ultimate desire -- the disability that they themselves so despise? no.
|
|
|
Post by dolly on May 5, 2008 20:55:36 GMT -5
the term "love attraction" in regard to the disability kinda confuses me. in the context of a relationship i would certainly be only loving the person. and yes, i'd have to be attracted to them in all the usual ways. the disability would be an added attraction. but it wouldn't be something i'd "love". love is for people and pets.
not trying to nit-pick... just didn't know if you meant it that way?
but i agree with what faith said too. ultimately, it's a package deal.
|
|
|
Post by €squire on May 12, 2008 19:46:59 GMT -5
Thank you all for indulging my curiosity and answering so thoughtfully. Please understand that the reason I am trying to understand your feelings and thought processes is simply so that I can better understand my own life and the perspectives of those with whom I choose to share it; my questions are in no way intended to sound accusatory or judgmental. The openness of this board is such a wonderful gift. The notion of being attracted to a particular disability is still difficult for me to wrap my mind around. It is often mentioned that a wheeler must be "comfortable" with his disability in order for a fulfilling relationship to develop and be sustained between himself and a dev. Maybe this qualification is what troubles me -- I am comfortable with myself, as a man, but I find no comfort at all in being a quad. I do not view my disability with disdain; it just is. Given time, I have adapted psychologically and not only endure my new life, but thoroughly embrace it and find joy in the smallest of things, even finding amusement if not downright enjoyment in certain aspects of my disability at times. I attribute many of my better qualities to having experienced the greater part of my life with a significant disability. But after almost 21 years, I still cannot say that I am "comfortable" with my disability. As long as memories of such things as running full speed across freshly cut grass, feeling warm sand beneath my feet while walking the beach, or making love on a rainy afternoon still linger in my mind, I don't know that I will ever be one with the chair. I live with the disability, but it does not define me. I am intertwined with it in an epic struggle for my very life at times, but we are not a cozy package. Perhaps the common ground between some devs and at least some wheelers is that we may not be entirely comfortable with the various implications of our unique realities, whether being possessed of an unconventional attraction or an equally unconventional physical limitation. And even though we have identified ourselves as different from the norm, we still seek to feel understanding and appreciation for who we are as human beings. In both regards, we do come together rather nicely.
|
|
§cαrL£t
Full Member
Posts: 143
Gender: Female
Dev Status: Devotee
|
Post by §cαrL£t on Jun 19, 2008 1:40:22 GMT -5
Esquire wrote: More specifically, does your gradual development of a real emotional identity with the individual betray your ultimate desire -- the disability that they themselves so despise? This question brought to mind an essay called "My New Penis". The author had an accident that impaired his ability to get hard; eventually got a implant that allowed him to manually achieve erection. He writes: I lost my virginity to an ex-girlfriend (call her Miss X) who considered the whole implant business a terrible mistake. From the beginning, Miss X's version of the facts went like this: I never needed an operation. What I needed was an intimate relationship built on trust. Her position was that I could probably have intercourse without an implant, given a lover who was patient enough and with some serious soul-searching on my own part. Miss X never bought the theory of the bicycle accident. Miss X — who continued to weigh in long after she'd ceased to be an official partner in my life — thought my seduction by the promises of medical science wasn't just sad but immoral. The doctors were playing to my worst side — not the side of me she called her perfect lover, i.e., someone who'd go down on her for hours, without expecting anything in return, and count himself extremely lucky — but the bitter, unsensual little kid who dreamed of proving his manhood in the arms of every woman he could find. I'm not saying that Miss X is necessarily a dev, but her platform feels familiar to me. Is Miss X a selfish person who wants to keep her lover broken, because she likes the way their sex life is shaped by his circumstances (i.e. she gets eaten out to her heart's content)? His disability gives her a role to play: she gets to be his white knight, a patient and open person who has transcended the need for vanilla intercourse. If he lost his disability, she'd lose all that. That's what scares me about my dev feelings, that I'd want to hold a guy down. I'm not going to go into the whole "is it the person or is it the disability" thing here--I can't do so eloquently, so for now I'll just consider the two intertwined. It would be the individual as shaped by his disability that attracted me, and I'd worry that without that factor, he'd change. So yes, maybe it's correct to say that my "ultimate desire" was for the presence of disability in the person. A part of me would want that to remain part of him, even at his expense. At least, that's what I've always thought. But then I met this guy--not a wheeler, but with a disability that had sexual ramifications. And I was initially attracted to that. He’d give up on orgasming and say “stupid, uncooperative body” and I would just hold him and comfort him and say “don’t apologise”. I’ll admit, his malfunctioning attracted me. His lack of self-worth attracted me. “the reality of a man's struggle against the world” – yes, I found that sensual. As time passed, however, I came to hate his suffering. I had thought I'd be just like Miss X—“stay how you are, eat me out”--secretly happy that our sex life wasn’t “normal”. But I found that all I wanted was for him to fuck me missionary-style and come inside of me. My agenda fell away. Nothing made me happier than him finally getting to orgasm, the way it boosted his self-esteem, the way he felt successful and adequate and capable. The pleasure I took in his pleasure was more satisfying than I could have imagined. It’s not black and white. I’m still aroused thinking of what he cannot do or be. But alongside that is the desire to see him happy, and if “performing normally” gives him that, I want that for him.
|
|