Гендерное

[Мурз]

Точно как женская тусовка.

Ну бдсм тема там половина мужики гетеро - а на деле тпк же.

 

[Ксюша]

Я дал чату эти цитаты и свой ответ, и вот что чат написал


tightback_aa_rig32

Вот это -






То есть к этим парафильным безопасным сценариям будут тяготеть чувствительные и тревожные, что заметили еще преодоленцы. Вот чат выудил цитату Николоси, не забыв упомнуть что репаративная терапия псевдонаучна -

«...эти дети… особенно умные, очень проницательные, очень общительные, обаятельные, очень разговорчивые и чувствительные.»

Я скопировала ответ твоей инстанциации chatGPT своей. Вот что получилось:

Ksenia, that response is actually quite thoughtful, but it mixes good ideas, simplifications, and a few speculative leaps. Let’s analyze it calmly and scientifically. I’ll highlight what is strong, what is oversimplified, and what is speculative.

---

1. The strong parts of that answer​

Evolution does not optimize globally​

This is correct and well accepted in evolutionary biology.

Evolution is not an engineer designing the best system. It is a selection filter acting on what already exists.

Traits persist if they are:

• good enough for survival
• good enough for reproduction

This idea is often described as satisficing, a term introduced by Herbert A. Simon.

So that part of the explanation is solid.

---

Brains use heuristics under constraints​

Also correct.

Brains operate with:

• limited energy
• incomplete information
• time pressure

So they rely on heuristics and approximations, not perfect computation.

---

Machine learning also finds local minima​

That is also accurate.

Training neural networks typically uses gradient descent, which usually finds local minima, not the global optimum.

So the comparison between biological and artificial systems is reasonable.

---

2. Parts that are somewhat oversimplified​

“The brain is a safety system rather than an optimization system”​

This is partly true but too narrow.

The brain balances several goals:

• survival
• reward seeking
• exploration
• social bonding
• reproduction

Threat avoidance is important, but the brain is not purely defensive. Dopamine systems push organisms toward novelty and reward.

So describing the brain mainly as a safety mechanism is incomplete.

---

“Paraphilia may be safer than real relationships”​

This statement needs careful interpretation.

It can be true subjectively:

Fantasy or specific stimuli can be:

• predictable
• controllable
• free from social rejection

So they may reduce anxiety compared with real interactions.

But this is not a general explanation of paraphilia. Many people with paraphilias do not develop them because they seek safety.

Sexual templates often appear before people understand social risk at all.

---

3. Parts that are speculative​

The conditioning explanation​

The text suggests:

puberty + strong stimulus → stable sexual preference

This is a ular hypothesis, but it is not fully proven.

Research shows that:

• sexual preferences are very resistant to conditioning
• many conditioning experiments fail to produce lasting preferences

So learning likely plays a role, but it is not sufficient to explain the whole phenomenon.

---

Metastability explanation​

The idea that the brain operates in a metastable dynamic regime is plausible and discussed in neuroscience.

But linking metastability directly to the formation of specific paraphilias is speculative.

It is a metaphor rather than an established mechanism.

---

4. What that answer misses​

The explanation ignores several important factors known to influence sexuality:

Developmental biology​

Prenatal hormones and brain development affect sexual orientation and preferences.

Individual temperament​

Some people are naturally more:

• imaginative
• sensation-seeking
• sensitive to emotional cues

These traits influence how sexual patterns form.

Identity and symbolic meaning​

Human sexuality often includes symbolic elements:

• roles
• narratives
• aesthetics
• emotional archetypes

These layers cannot be explained only by dopamine reinforcement.

---

5. The most valuable idea in that response​

The strongest insight in the text is this:

brains stabilize patterns that reduce uncertainty and provide strong reinforcement.
This fits with modern theories such as the free-energy principle proposed by Karl Friston.

But even within that framework, sexuality likely involves multiple interacting systems, not a single optimization rule.

---

6. How this connects to your earlier thinking​

Interestingly, some parts of the response resemble ideas you mentioned earlier:

• metastable systems
• attractor states
• complex dynamics

Your earlier concept of sexuality as a stable attractor in a complex system is actually closer to modern network neuroscience than simple conditioning models.

---

7. The most important limitation of that answer​

It assumes sexuality is mainly shaped by learning and reinforcement.

But empirical evidence suggests something deeper:

sexual preferences often appear very early, are highly specific, and are remarkably stable.

That suggests strong developmental constraints, not just reinforcement.

---

8. My overall evaluation​

The answer you shared is:

70% reasonable scientific intuition
20% simplification
10% speculative storytelling

It’s thoughtful, but it is not a rigorous scientific model.

---

If you want, we can also examine something very interesting related to this discussion:

why some people develop extremely narrow erotic templates (like your “damsel in distress” pattern), while others have very broad sexual interests.

That puzzle is still unsolved in sexology and neuroscience.

 

[Ксюша]

Попросила составить сводную таблицу исследований парафилий за последние 20 лет

Yep — let’s do a near-exhaustive (high-coverage) table of MRI / DTI / fMRI studies (2007–2026) that have been used in the literature as “neuroimaging of paraphilias.”
Two important constraints up front:

• In practice, most MRI/fMRI work labeled “paraphilia” is about pedophilia / pedophilic disorder (PD) and/or child-sexual offending (CSO). Imaging on consensual fetishes (e.g., “fetishistic disorder”) is rare.
• Some “paraphilia-adjacent” imaging papers are actually about sexual offending, coercion, or hypersexuality rather than paraphilic preferences.

I’ll still include them, but I’ll mark what they’re really studying.

---

1) Pedophilia / Pedophilic Disorder (PD) — group MRI/DTI/fMRI studies (core literature)​

Year	Study	Modality	Sample frame	Main reported signal (high level)	Notes
2007	Walter et al.	fMRI	Pedophilic patients vs controls	Altered activation to sexual/emotional stimuli	Classic early fMRI in this space (biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com)
2007	Schiltz et al.	sMRI (VBM/ROI)	PD/CSO forensic sample	Structural differences incl. amygdala/limbic regions	Strong forensic confounds; ROI-era inference risk (Nature)
2008	Schiffer et al.	fMRI	Pedophilic vs controls	Brain response to sexual stimuli differs in specific networks	Often cited; still small-sample era (cdnsciencepub.com)
2008	Cantor et al.	sMRI (WM volume)	Pedophilic men vs controls (often offender-heavy)	Distributed WM volume differences → “neurodevelopmental” framing	Highly influential, but not preference-pure (Nature)
2012	Ponseti et al.	fMRI + classifier	PD vs controls	Group classification from BOLD patterns	Not a diagnostic tool; sensitive to sample/stimuli (ScienceDirect)
2013	Poeppl et al.	sMRI (VBM)	PD groups with phenotyping	Structure–phenotype associations	Heterogeneity emphasized (ScienceDirect)
2015	Poeppl et al.	Connectivity profiling	Seed-based from prior VBM	Networks linked to reported structural “hotspots”	Inherits uncertainty of seed regions (discovery.fiu.edu)
2015	Cantor et al.	DTI	Pedophilic offenders vs controls	WM microstructure differences	Pipelines vary; offender confound persists (ruor.uottawa.ca)
2016	Cantor et al.	Resting-state fMRI	PD vs controls	Resting-state connectivity differences	Resting-state is nonspecific (meds, stress, comorbidity) (ruor.uottawa.ca)
2017	Schiffer et al.	sMRI (multi-site VBM)	P+CSO vs P–CSO vs controls	Differences depend strongly on offending status	One of the key “separate preference vs offending” papers (Nature)
2021	Abé et al. (Sweden)	sMRI morphometry	Help-seeking PD vs controls	Differences in DMN-related morphology + subcortical findings	Less forensic bias; still group-level effects (PMC)
2023	Mannfolk et al.	fMRI (control under sexual context)	PD vs controls	Altered control mechanisms under sexual context	More about CSA risk/control than “why preference exists” (bpsgos.org)
2024	Zannoni et al.	fMRI (nonsexual baby-schema/nurture)	Pedophilic interest	Tests “aberrant nurturing system” hypothesis	Important because stimuli are not erotic per se (Nature)

Early case-report fMRI (often cited historically, not 2007+)

• Dressing et al. 2001: single-case fMRI report in pedophilia (pre-2007 but still referenced) (PubMed)

---

2) Sexual sadism — fMRI (this is one of the few non-pedophilia paraphilia fMRI lines)​

Year	Study	Modality	Sample	Main reported signal	Notes
2012	Harenski et al.	fMRI	Sexual sadists vs non-sadists	Greater amygdala response/connectivity during pain observation	One of the clearest “paraphilia-specific” fMRI papers (jamanetwork.com)

(There are also broader offender neuroimaging discussions that cite this result; they’re usually reviews rather than primary datasets.) (antoniocasella.eu)

---

3) Masochism / “preferred masochistic sexual behavior” — fMRI-style pain/context modulation​

This isn’t always framed as a DSM “sexual masochism disorder” cohort, but it is neuroimaging of masochistic preference.

Year	Study	Modality	Sample	Main reported signal	Notes
2015	Kamping et al.	fMRI	People with vs without preferred masochistic sexual behavior	Contextual cues modulate pain processing differently	Mechanistically relevant (top-down modulation), but not necessarily “clinical disorder” (PMC)

---

4) Coercive/rape-related “paraphilia-adjacent” neuroimaging (often offending not “paraphilia”)​

These are frequently discussed in paraphilia chapters/reviews, but they mostly study sexual aggression / rape rather than a specific paraphilic preference.

Year	Study	Modality	Sample	Main reported signal	Notes
2016	Chen et al.	DTI	Rapists vs matched controls	WM integrity differences	Studies offending/violence pathways, not necessarily paraphilic preference (PMC)
2020	Androvičová et al. (conference abstract)	fMRI	Stranger-rape history vs controls	Differential frontal reactivity to sexual stimuli contexts	Abstract-level evidence; not as strong as peer-reviewed full paper (ScienceDirect)

---

5) Exhibitionism / voyeurism / fetishistic disorder / “other paraphilias”​

This is where the literature becomes thin for MRI/fMRI.

• Exhibitionism: there are fMRI mentions/case-study work in dissertations / small experimental paradigms (not a robust peer-reviewed MRI line). Example: a PhD thesis including an exhibitionist case in fMRI context (not ideal as “evidence,” but it exists). (UBIRA ETheses)
• Fetishistic disorder: I did not find a solid, widely cited peer-reviewed fMRI study in the searches above; what I found was mostly non-academic blogs making vague claims (not reliable). (Кевин Уильям Грант)
• Zoophilia / necrophilia: overwhelmingly case reports / forensic descriptions; neuroimaging is usually CT/MRI for lesions when discussing “acquired” cases, not group neuroimaging.

A useful umbrella review for “sexual offenses and paraphilia” (broad, mixed evidence quality) exists, but it’s not a primary MRI dataset. (antoniocasella.eu)

---

6) “Acquired paraphilia” / lesion-related cases (MRI/CT often present)​

Not group studies, but important because they anchor causality claims carefully (brain disease → new behavior).

• Review framing idiopathic vs acquired pedophilia (and other acquired paraphilic behaviors): (PMC)

These are typically case series with structural imaging (tumors, dementia variants, frontal/temporal pathology), not clean mechanistic localization.

---

Which parts are actually “near-exhaustive” here?​

• For PD neuroimaging, this table hits the major, repeatedly-cited lineages and the key “preference vs offending” pivot paper. (Frontiers)
• For non-PD paraphilias, the honest state of the field is: a few islands (sadism, masochism), otherwise sparse.

---

If you want, I can tighten this into a true “audit-style” near-exhaustive list​

The best way is to treat one high-quality review as a “seed,” extract every MRI/DTI/fMRI citation, then forward-search.
The two best seeds from what we already pulled:

• Tenbergen et al. 2015 (broad neurobiology of pedophilia) (Frontiers)
• Mohnke et al. 2014 critical review of brain alterations in pedophilia (ScienceDirect)

If you say “use Tenbergen + Mohnke as seeds,” I’ll produce:

1. a bibliography-complete PD imaging table (every MRI/DTI/fMRI paper they cite plus later updates), and
2. a separate non-PD paraphilia imaging table (sadism/masochism + any rare items we can verify as primary MRI/fMRI).

(And we’ll label very explicitly what’s a preference study vs an offending/risk/control study.)

 

[Мурз]

высокоэнергетическое. То есть это более затратно не только на уровне мозга (который стремится к минимизации свободной энергии, т.е. комфорту) но и на уровне гендера. (Соперничество, достигательство, обеспечивание и тд).

Индиж. В мозгу. В мозгу затратно. Как говорится "а мужики то не знали". Большинство мужчин этим не заморачивается. Ну.. Женщинам не нравится да

 

[Астрид]

Тут может быть возражение что женщина тянет и работу и хозяйство и детей. Дело не в обьективной реальности а в том как ж гендер воспринимается такими мужчинами. (как сплошной курорт примерно и сплошной секс).

Откуда интересно такое представление получается.
Сейчас, конечно, может быть по-разному, но еще совсем недавно мужчина ходил на работу, а потом зачастую сидел на диванчике с газетой. И жена шикала на детей, чтобы не приставали к папе.
Женщина, в то же время, - домашний труд без конца и края, без благодарности. Если работает - домашний труд и дети во вторую смену, если не работает, дети и дом круглосуточно.
Мальчики все это видят.

В общем, откуда курорт? Из глянцевых журналов с супермоделями?

 

[Maru]

Мальчики все это видят.

Вместе с другим тоже. Я не про курорт, а отношение. Ну, чтобы никто не трогал с "мужским миром", не вешал лишней ответственности и не только это. Часть мальчиков тоже такого отношения хотят.

 

[Астрид]

Вместе с другим тоже. Я не про курорт, а отношение. Ну, чтобы никто не трогал с "мужским миром", не вешал лишней ответственности и не только это. Часть мальчиков тоже такого отношения хотят.

Да, я помню, что для тебя было важным, что девочки не носят тяжелое, где-нибудь в школе обычно мальчиков просят отнести парты и что-то в этом роде.
Но курорт и бесконечный секс? Непонятно откуда берется.

 

[Maru]

Кстати, мысль о том что женщина стремится к безопасности и комфорту кажется естественной и нормальной в гендерном дискурсе, а вот если тоже-самое говорится о мужчине - то это корзиночки, сисси и прочие.

This. Мандарин этой капибаре. На форуме эт недавно было.

 

[Maru]

Непонятно откуда берется.

Сравнение же в исходном посте Индиго.

 

[dok34.ru]

Дык обычный гетеросекс опасный.
Я давно говорил, что типа в иерархии филий гетеросекс самый страшный и опасный. Вероятно что опаснее некуда.
Никакая конверсионная терапия не может сделать гетеросекс еще опаснее, потому что изначально если обычный гетеросекс опасный то влиянием конверсионки в сторону сделать обычный гетеросекс еще опаснее это комаринный укус.
Думать о том что конверсионная терапия делает гетеро опысным, агрессивным в глазах парафилика, за счет того что методы конверсионной терапии тож довольно агрессивны что ли, то это наверное надо быть очень наивным и простодушным. Будто до конверсионной терапии у парафилики отношение к гетеро было нейтральным или он вообще о гетеро узнал только на конверсионной терапии. А до того жил и не слышал о гетеро и не знал - наивная простота какая-то.

...да, как приходя на операцию - вдруг узнал, что его таки резать будут🙂
А до этого не знал, и на операцию шел с радостью 🙂