The Catcher in the Lie

One very interesting observation made by Ray Blanchard and his followers is that what they call "heterosexual autogynephiliacs" (men who are attracted to women and who love the idea of themselves having a female body) may fantasize about having sex with a man, even if they are sexually attracted to women.

The faceless men

When this is the case, however, the man is normally faceless. They do not fantasize about a real man, as women or homosexual men would do.

That many crossdreamers (called "autogynephiliacs" by Blanchard & Co)  dream about faceless men is correct. I see it in myself, I see it confirmed in tales told in transgendered discussion forums and I see it in much transgender erotica.

This phenomenon is actually one of Blanchard & Co's strongest arguments for classifying "autogynephilia" as a paraphilia, a perversion where the man's desires towards women are redirected towards the idea of themselves being that woman.

The other man is faceless in this narrative, they argue, because he is no more than a prop for the sexual fantasies of the "autogynephiliac." He is a prop that confirms the femininity of the "autogynephiliac" within those fantasies (For referenes, see my previous blog posts).

---

UPDATE ON TERMINOLOGY

Since this blog post was written I have stopped using the terms "autogynephilia" and "autoandrophilia" to describe people. The reason for this is that the terms implicitly communicates an explanation for why some people get aroused by imagining themselves as the opposite sex . This explanation, that this is some kind of autoerotic paraphilia,  is both wrong and stigmatizing. Instead I use the neutral term "crossdreamers".

Click here for a discussion of the dark side of the autogynephilia theory.

---

I guess you could also take this way of reasoning one step further, arguing that the masked man in the dream is the "autogynephiliac" himself. He is making love to himself.

It should be kept in mind that the starting point for Blanchard is a very strict distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

This is why the idea of "autogynephiliacs" pops up in the first place, and I am starting to suspect that their explanation of "autogynephilia" is an attempt to explain a phenomenon that otherwise would ruin their neat binary model of human sexual behaviour.

The "autognephiliacs2 themselves may tell them all sorts of confusing things, like "I am attracted to women as a man, and men as a woman" or "I find men ugly, but as a woman I dream of being taken by one..." or "I dream of becoming a lesbian, but I must admit that I am curious about how it would feel having sex with a man when being a woman."

Blanchard & Co find it hard to explain why masculine looking men with seemingly few feminine traits want to have sex with men. This does not fit with the model.

Paraphilia

Blanchard therefore makes an alternative theory to explain this phenomenon. The masculine male to female transgender persons are in fact suffering from a paraphilia, a perversion. They have internalized their natural object of desire: women.

As I have noted elsewhere: For this to be true, he must demonstrate that "autogynephiliacs" actually are unable to form a lasting bond with a real woman, or that their relationships are less "real" than the bonds between "normal" heterosexual men and their spouses. If their object of desire has been internalized (they are in love with themselves), they cannot establish a good relationship with a real woman out there.

I cannot see that this have been proven. I have lived with the same woman for over ten years. I love her very much and have indeed a very real (although not precisely "normal") relationship.

Yes, I do see that the way many of us keep our "other side" hidden from the one closest to us out of fear of losing them may be taken as a proof of us being dysfunctional. But dammit! All people keep secrets, also from their loved ones. There are just too many taboos around to do otherwise!

Wife to husband: "You know, I think my colleague Fred is one hot hunk of man. I fantasized about having sex with him today. Not that I would, but you know..." Some things are better left unsaid. Whether an "autogynephiliac" can share his weird secret with his significant other, depends on the circumstances.

So I am not willing to accept that all relationships between "autogynephiliacs" and women are less "real" than other relationships. It seems to me that all are struggling!

What about post-op transsexuals?

Moreover, Blanchard never seems to get around to talking to "autogynephiliacs" that have gone through sex reassignment surgery to see whether they have been able to establish a good relationship with a woman or a man.

Some of them do report a change in sexual orientation after the hormones and the surgery. They do become attracted to men, and even pair up with them.

Following Blanchard's theory these relationships must be false for the transsexuals that start out as "autogynephiliacs." The "autogynephiliacs" are using these men for their pleasure and nothing more. But has this been proven? Is this really true?

I cannot imagine why an "autogynephile trans woman" who is attracted to women will share a home with a man just to use him as one gigantic dildo. It just does not sound realistic to me.

An alternative explanation

Maybe there are other and more simple explanations?

Let's argue that longing for submission and penetration is a genetic trait that are more likely to be found in females than in men. I mean submission in the neutral sense here, as (1) being the "catcher" instead of the "pitcher" in the sexual act, and (2) that the man is the one that actively courts and the woman is the one that wants to be wooed.

(Number 2 in the paragraph above is actually a bit questionable. "Normal" cisgendered women in modern day Scandinavia may be as proactive as men when it comes to love and courtship. But on an aggregate statistical level, let us suppose that women are more likely to be more reactive than proactive, relatively speaking, when it comes to the development of male/female relationships.)

Next, let's say that a"utogynephiliacs" have this trait, in spite of their Y chromosome. After all, many "normal" men may display some traditionally feminine traits without being considered effeminate: "He is a kind and patient man, a good listener."

There are women who display typical masculine traits as well , being those physical (excessive hair growth) or behavioral (the tomboy). They still feel like -- and are accepted as-- heterosexual women.

Then there are lesbians who apparently do not feel the need for penetration, which indicates that the opposite may be true, as well.

If "autogynephiliacs" who feel attracted to women have inherited a submissive trait, the need to "mask" the male in their fantasies is understandable. They long to submit and give in to another human being, but cannot accept the idea of having sex with a real man.

Still, according to the traditional tale of masculinity and femininity, being a woman means giving in to a man. In their fantasies they are a sexual active woman who wants to be the catcher. They therefore include a man, but make him featureless.

(It should be noted that there are other "autogynephiliacs" who do not dream of being taken by a man. They solve the whole problem elegantly by dreaming of lesbian sex. In those cases I guess the urge for penetration is absent or less intense.)

To this Blanchard & Co might say: "Ok, but that's exactly our point! The "autogynephiliac" is an heterosexual man. He should go out and conquer women! He shouldn't long for someone to push him up against a wall and - you know...."

I can tell you that this is exactly how many "autogynephiliacs" feel as well.

"I am not a real man," they think. "I am a wuss, a sissy, maybe gay even. I can't go out and find myself a woman. I wouldn't be man enough for her." etc. etc.

But is this submissiveness necessarily evidence of perversion?

"Shemales" and girls

First, let's look at the facelessness of the men, the facelessness that apparently turns them into sex toys for "narcissistic" and "self-possessed" "autogynephiliacs".

The love objects of "autogynephiliac" sexual fantasies are not necessarily faceless.

Including men is not the only way "autogynephiliacs" solve the need to fantasize about submission. Others (or the same man) can imagine themselves penetrated by a woman with a strap-on. This can be a fantasy about a real woman with a face.

Some actually practice this kind of "pegging" with their girl friends. It is a common theme in TG erotica.

Others dream of having sex with a "shemale".

I know this is a derogatory term, but it is the only one that fits when it comes to describing the transsexuals of such fantasies. Fantasy shemales are pre-op MTF trassexuals or that can take the active part in the sexual act.

The TG erotica sites are full of tales about men being taken by "shemales", and "shemale" sex is apparently the fastest growing branch of the porn industry. And while the "heterosexual" "autogynephiliac" wouldn't take any pleasure in gay porn, some of them find transsexual adult entertainment exciting. The transsexual models are not faceless.

The Blachard disciple Bailey describes a meeting with a "shemale" he -- as a heterosexual man -- finds very attractive in The Man who would be Queen. If he can imagining himself having sex with such a woman, so can any man without being accused for being a dysfunctional pervert.

There are also "autogynephiliacs" who dream about becoming "shemales" themselves. Given what I have read in transgender stories and captions, these fantasies are nearly always about being the catcher.

My point is that the reason for the facelessness of men in "autogynephilic" fantasies is not necessarily that the "autogynephiliac" is suffering from a paraphilia where they are only able to make love to themselves as a woman. It could simply be that he has a strong feminine trait that makes him dream about submission.

I know, that last sentence is wrong in so many ways, but I am trapped in our traditional language here. This "feminine" trait may actually be a neutral emotional trait, common to both sexes in varying degree. The word "submission" is also wrong, as it gives the impression that this is all about power. It might just as well be a need for growing closer.

Still, in our culture this submissive role is supposed to be adopted by the woman and the active one by the man, and in order for that to make sense in his "gynephiliac" mind, he must mask the man. If he instead fantasize about being taken by a woman or a shemale, he has no problem imagining their faces. He wants to have sex with women!

Cannot "normal" fantasies contain faceless persons?

Another thing: Is having sex fantasies including faceless people really a proof of perversion? People think about sex a lot, and most of that time they there is no real sexual partner to draw into these dreams. Is it really true that the figures involved in these fantasies all have clear identities in "non-autogynephiliacs"? Really? Do we know that?

And even if that is the case: Is masturbating alone to a Playboy model being less self-absorbed than the "autogynephilic" fantasy of being taken by a faceless man?

I don't get it! If masturbating to the fantasy of having sex with Angeline Jolie is OK (and in the 21st century it is, right ? At least outside a stable relationship...) then what makes the "autogynephilic" fantasies so problematic? The Angelina Jolie of a teenager's fantasy is no more real than the actors in the dream of an autogynephiliac.

The heterogenity of nature

"All right," Blanchard & Co may say. "But this only proves that our subject is a heterosexual man at heart, which is what we have argued all the time. He is still suffering from paraphilia, because as a heterosexual man he should not dream of taking the submissive role."

Says who?

This is only true if you think religious morality or scientific orthodoxy require that there are only four distinct categories of sexual human beings:

Heterosexual men (active)	Heterosexual women (passive)
Homosexual men (passive???)	Homosexual women (active???)

Nature isn't binary. Nature is analog, with a tremendous amount of variety between species and between individuals. If you really want to base your view of sexuality and gender on evolutionary theory (which in many ways can be very fruitful) the strict homo/hetero and male/female regimes seem far too restrictive.

Evolution is driven by variety and change, a constant barrage of mutations. Sex itself is an evolutionary tactic designed to produce new and exciting combination of genes. This is why all men and women display a mix of "typical" feminine and masculine traits, although most often in different proportions.

Both sexes are made from the same mold. Men have seemingly useless nipples. That does not make them freaks. Women become leaders of the pack. That does not make them less attractive.

Among animals, there is wide variety of gender roles: Among our closest relatives, the bonobos, everybody have sex with everybody, regardless of sex or age. There are birds that have three distinctive types of males with different "gender roles" and others where the birds have more sex with individuals of their own sex than with their "spouses". There are animal species where there are no males at all, only females or hermaphrodites, and others were the individual animal may change sex. Anything is possible! And it is all "natural"!

My point is that a theory that explains "autogynephilia" as a different mix of feminine and masculine traits is simpler and more elegant than a theory that have to develop an "epicycle" of misdirected desires and internalized women.

A counterargument would be that my alternative version of "autogynephilia" continues to be a disorder. The "autogynephiliac" is still "ill" in some way or the other. I may agree to this -- he is certainly suffering -- but he is not necessarily a pervert.

Disorder vs. paraphilia

If his complex of male and female traits is dominated by the female side, he is indeed a woman in a man's body, and he is suffering for it. The corrective measure would be to give her a female body.

If his mix of male and female traits is less clearcut, he is also suffering from a disorder. But this disorder is as much a result of his surrounding culture as it is from nature. Nature does not care or -- alternatively -- she loves all her children, to speak metaphorically. She certainly does not judge us morally.

It is the surrounding culture that makes "autogynephiliacs" miserable, because there are no words that can help them and others make sense of their lives, and there are no roles for them in society that gives their sense of self meaning.

Which is why the Blanchard "autogynephilia" theory is such a paradox.

On the one hand it has given us a term that makes a group of men visible. For that I am him and his followers  grateful. At the same time the very world view the theory is based on is what makes "autogynephiliacs" suffer.

Here's the current reality:

Man to son:

"Alfred, you have to stop this nonsense, becoming a nurse and whatnot. And what is this crap about you allowing Bill to walk all over you? Talk is not the solution here, son. You have to fight back and prove that you are a man. Women don't like sissies!"

Imagine the following alternative reality:

One mother to the other:

"Yes, Alfred is a crossdreamer. He was such a nice boy as a kid, you know, helped me out in the kitchen and everything. He is seeing a very clever girl at the moment. Monica. She is a NAVY Seal. Yeah, I believe she is the one with the trousers in that family, which fits him perfectly. Alfred is at home looking after the kids. The kids love him, you know. I am so happy for him."

or...

"Alfred is the tough one of my kids. He is active in sports, an ex-marine, CEO of his own ICT company, a pillar of society, but his wife tells me that he shows her another side of his personality at night. Not that she will tell me what this is all about, but I believe she fell in love with his more feminine side."

or...

"It turned out Alfred was a woman all along, you know. I should have known, when he started borrowing my shoes. Thank God that's not a problem anymore! He's taking hormones now, and should have his female body ready in time for my and his father's wedding anniversary. I am looking forward to that. We have already discussed the dress she is going to were at the party..."

Postscript

Just to make sure: I cannot prove that my alternative narrative (which inspired by both ancient belief systems and contemporary transgender thinkers) is the correct one. My point is that there are other theories that fits the observed phenomena as well as the one given by Blanchard.

I am working on a few blog posts on "pre-modern" societies where the transgendered were given specific roles in society, roles that gave their fate meaning. The point is not to say that those societies got it right, just to prove that there are many other ways of imagining this.

The jury is still out on this one.