#pseudosexuality moment

[circular-bircular]

Firstly, thanks so much for your patience! I wanted to give a really comprehensive review, but therapy kicked my ass yesterday. Then, I left my computer charger at home, so I did most of this post on my phone. Oof!

Alright.

The claim that endogenic has been used to fakeclaim DID systems is, perhaps, a bit of a misnomer on my part. Has it been used that way? Yes. In medical spaces, however, it has been more often used to fakeclaim trauma based disorders in general.

The sources here are a combination of what various people have found on this topic, as well as my own research -- predominantly these sources are from others, as they’ve done a LOT of research that I frankly don’t have the chance for right now. (Also, apologies if I don’t have everything italicized or formatted correctly for citations -- I’m not used to APA. MLA for life, sadly).

The Trinity of Trauma: Ignorance, Fragility, and Control by Ellert R.S. Nijenhuis: This book goes into detail about how trauma has been viewed throughout the centuries, discussing topics such as hysteria and how people fakeclaimed trauma via endogenic theory. It’s a really comprehensive view honestly! I unfortunately can’t find a good accessible copy at the moment (the price point of 109 dollars on Google Play is a bit hefty), but here’s a few choice quotes with their pages listed:

(Page 38-39) “Freud’s theoretical conversion of a predominant endogenic interpretation of trauma and hysteria (sexual abuse → sexual overstimulation, deferred action, repression → hysteria) in an extreme endogenic view (Oedipal sexual wishes → fantasy, repression → hysteria) had major clinical implications. Not sexual overstimulation, but sexual desires were being repressed; not the free-floating unconscious sexual affect, but Oedipal sexual desires had to be brought to conscious awareness. And because these desires are essentially of a biological nature, the essence of hysteria would also be biological.” This is to say, Freud popularized the theory that people were traumatizing themselves due to their own biological desires to fuck their parents; this view of trauma was saying that the disorders we know today to be caused by trauma were all biologically caused. It’s the basis for the Fantasy Model.

(Page 157) “Many World War I psychiatrists also took a one-sided endogenic explanatory route by claiming that soldiers who broke down had a weak mental and moral will.” This is to say, endogenesis, as an idea, was being used to explain away the effects of trauma on the brain, deeming those who were struggling with their traumatic experiences to be weaker than those “normal” people.

(Page 158) “Another revived historical idea involves a contemporary variety of a particular mix of endogenic and exogenic causes, that is, the idea that dissociative symptoms and disorders are due to the patient’s fantasy proneness and suggestibility (endogenesis) in combination with suggestive, illness-inducing or illness-reinforcing actions of other therapists and the media (exogenesis). These thoughts have been influential, but individual views and facts can be opposite (see Chapter 15). An attempt by some proponents of the so-called sociocognitive model of DID to erase DID as a mental disorder in DSM-5 failed.” This is to say, the sociocognitive model of DID (that lovely, lovely model that assholes like to try to use to complain about people with DID existing online) is based on the idea of endogenic (biological, “from within”) fantasy proneness (the fantasy model of DID) and exogenic (influence that is not from within, but is not traumagenic) factors led to dissociative disorders existing.

All this to say, Freud’s endogenic theory led to the mass fakeclaiming of DID systems. Freud’s pseudosexual theories, which relied on endogenic causes of trauma, led to the idea that it was the traumatized individuals’ own self (their endogenic body/mind/person) that led to them being traumatized, rather than the world around them being inhabitable (an exogenic factor).

This shows clearly that the term endogenic has been used against DID systems since Freud’s time, since before DID was even a term. Endogenic theories were used to try and remove DID from the DSM for crying out loud -- that’s pretty severe. This idea is also based particularly in the ableism of the time and the desire for Victorian abusers to hide their actions; after all, if Freud stuck with his original trauma theories, that would be outing a lot of abusers as being the way they are. His theories shifted with the political and social norms of the time. It’s a shame to see the term come into resurgence, then, and stumbling across it as a medical term fakeclaiming my trauma when I try to research my disorder. It felt strongly, when I first encountered it, that the term endogenic was being used to claim that non-traumagenic systems were experiencing the same thing as my disorder, but they were doing it through fantasy -- the idea that one could develop DID through just… imagining it. This is an incredibly harmful reiteration of the fantasy model, so you can understand where some of the hurt and pain comes from.

Of course, this was not the intention of Lunastusco when they “coined” endogenic. It’s a really very unfortunate case of someone not doing a lot of research into a term, and I will say, I fully don’t expect someone to know this unless they’re actually… y’know… seeking this information out. Unless Lunastusco looked specifically into how endogenic had been used in medical spaces, I highly doubt they’d have found anything. They’ve also gone on record to say that they regret not being more proactive with the label, and that they only did about 30 minutes of research into the label before applying it (I would cite that number, but it seems the original post where they stated this has disappeared into the ether. I had no luck finding it.)

The issue being that, rather than acknowledge that endogenic has absolutely been used to fakeclaim DID and trauma-based disorders, many major pro-endo syscoursers push the idea that this is an “anti-endo lie.” But the sources are right there, so… take what you will.

At the end of the day, it’s very clear that the term endogenic isn’t meant like that, at least not in its modern majority usage in the community (more on this later).

But Freud didn’t say “endogenic!”: A common argument I’ve seen is that Freud didn’t use the term endogenic. And, well. Technically, I guess you’re right — he spoke and wrote in German, so he didn’t use endogenic. He used endogen (and various conjugations of the term based on the tense and gender of the discussion). The translations appear as endogenous frequently, as endogenic and endogenous are the same thing; Endogenic causes are endogenous in nature. The terms are used interchangeably.

Personal Connection: There are more sources than this, obviously, which SysmedsareSexist has compiled on a post of mine about this topic. It’s actually where I found most of the quotes already from this post, as he and (I assume) the mods there did a lot of this legwork around October. This has actually been a discussion for some time in syscourse spaces, passed off as an “anti-endo lie” by major syscoursers. I was told repeatedly that I was making this up for attention, that the term was never used, that I was moving goalposts by translating things from the original german, that I hated endogenic systems for using the term endogenic, and that I was demanding apologies from people for using it.

… Yeah. I have something of a personal connection to this argument. Here’s a link to the post from October when I summarized my points, and where SAS laid out all of their sources. It’s far more comprehensive than my explanations here, and shows the usage of the term for decades, well before Lunastusco coined it in 2014.

Slightly To The Left of Fakeclaiming: This is more tangential, but I wanted to include modern versions of the way endogenic systems or pro-endo systems have utilized articles about multiplicity to fakeclaim DID, intentionally or otherwise. This isn’t quite the same as them using the term Endogenic to fakeclaim trauma-based DID, but there’s similarities that I’ll go into.

This post as well as this post go into my debunking of Normal Dimensions of Multiple Personality Without Amnesia. This article is commonly cited as “proof” of endogenic plurality, but what people who don’t read it don’t realize is that it’s fakeclaiming DID systems. The entire end of the article fakeclaims a diagnosed case of DID, suggests she imagined her trauma, and falls back on false memory foundation ideals. Seeing this touted as “proof of endogenic plurality” is similar to saying “DID systems are secretly endogenic and are imagining their trauma.” I doubt people are trying to do this, but… as a DID system, it fucking sucks to see. Given that this idea is based off of the Fantasy model, which… is based off of Freud’s endogenic hysteria theory… Not a great resource to use.

This trend of people seeing the term endogenous/endogenic and thinking it immediately means non-traumagenic plurality being proven continues, as A Jungian Perspective on the Dissociability of the Self by Brian R. Skea is the next article on my debunking series list. It’s another one that’s been given to me to prove endogenic systems exist, and… frankly, it’s been hard to get through. The quote I often see passed around is: “In actual fact, Jung, early in his work, minimised the impact of exogenous trauma on complex formation, emphasising more the endogenous trauma caused by conflictual fantasy. He also focussed on the capacity of the psyche to split into different personalities or systems of consciousness as an aspect of normal, that is, supposedly non-trauma-related complex formation.” The… endogenic trauma “caused by conflictual fantasy.” You mean. Fantasy model? Woohoo.

This… whatever it is, came up while I was trying to research the models of how DID can form -- you know, how the disorder, unrelated to endogenic plurality in the slightest, develops -- only for the argument here to be “we need a multi-factor model that doesn’t use trauma as heavily because the Fantasy Model makes some good points.” Ough. I can only access the abstract, sadly, but the reason I put it here is because I then promptly tried reading over this article that was given to me as “something written by an actual plural system, who was actually recognized as a system in the authorship!” and it struck me as. Eerily similar. I don’t think it’s intentional that these authors use the same language as the more fakeclaimy “the false memory foundation had good points” article, but it’s unfortunate again how much these languages overlap.

Lastly, as little as this counts as a “source,” there are so many systems with the personal experience of being fakeclaimed as “being endogenic.” I’m one of them and have spoken about this frequently on this blog. I was pressured for years to identify as autigenic and was told repeatedly by pro-endo systems that I “wasn’t traumatized enough” to have DID. This isn’t the term endogenic being used medically, but rather, the fact that people use endogenic plurality as yet another way to fakeclaim DID systems. Now it’s not “you’re faking because your trauma isn’t real” -- it’s “you’re an endogenic system because your trauma isn’t real.” Thankfully, it’s not much of the community that’s like this anymore, from what I’ve seen, and usually, it’s people in denial of their own trauma that I see telling traumatized people that their trauma isn’t real.

Thank you to @small-clover for asking for these. I hope this gives you some good reading material! As I said, most of this was gathered by others (thank you to the mods of SAS, a now deleted user who I won’t name here because they wanted entirely out of syscourse, Flowers, etc etc etc) and a few by myself. I hope it helps!

[centrumlumina]

I didn’t want to have to say this, but: anyone who thinks that the Boathouse Scene was a “Girlboss moment” has completely missed the point of Katya’s character arc and, frankly, the movie as a whole.

Katya’s arc is about the ways that her life is defined by the men around her. Goncharov, Andrey, Valery - they all have their own ideas of how she should act, who she should be. She doesn’t want to be a housewife, but in the strictly gendered society she lives in, she isn’t allowed to seek fulfilment beyond that.

The subtext of the conversation in the market is pretty blatant - Katya wants to be allowed to discover who she really is away from the obligations of her family, lovers, and husband. Sofia giving her the apple represents the offer of that freedom. Some people have interpreted this as a temptation - the serpent with Eve, and all the pseudosexual tension that implies - but I view it as an intentional subversion of that image, given the way Sofia is haloed in light throughout the scene. (The homoeroticism is real, though!)

I can see where some people get confused by the ending, because Katya does successfully escape her domestic life - but she doesn’t achieve that through the spiritual offer of self-knowledge Sofia represents! Her love for Goncharov and Andrey won’t allow that. Instead she betrays Sofia and winds up in the boathouse, holding the gun; the men around her have finally dragged her into their life of violence. She might survive the end of the movie, but she has lost everything she cared about, and instead of pursuing the independence she initially wanted, it’s implied (I heard confirmed in a cast interview? if anyone has a source for that let me know!) that she returns to Russia to pursue further vengeance.

Katya’s story arc is not about her being a Girlboss - she isn’t beating the men at their own game, or if she is it’s not a game worth playing. Katya is a tragedy, and a warning about the way the violence of men damages the women around them. Killing is never something to aspire to - it is only, as Valery says, “a clock ticking down to midnight.”

[follows-the-bees]

A while ago I made a post comparing character traits and audience reactions to them of SPN with OFMD (Dean is to Ed, Stede is to Cas (and Sam), and Izzy is to John) but left it at that. But as I'm writing fics about both of them I really am noticing the similarities even more and you know what, I do want to elaborate. Similar characters traits and then on audience perception/reaction.

Dean and Ed

Characteristics: both underneath it all are soft but have been forced to be hard due to the world/harsh circumstances they are in. When left to their own devices, they will always choose softness first. Both of them want a partner not just for physical intimacy but emotional, they want to be loved and really seen for who they are, not the mask they put up. (Sexual: both are shown with sub undertones)

The childhood trauma in both is strong and affects them as middle-aged adults. When they are in moments of high trauma they become selectively mute.

They also wear a (metaphorical) mask a lot of the time. Their main journey is growing and learning to be comfortable and love all aspects of themselves.

Audience perspection: some of the audience falls for that mask and think those are the traits of the characters. (I.e. Dean is some womanizer with toxic masculinity he never outgrows, Ed is a violent man, etc.) They can also be divisive and there's no in between: you either love or hate them.

Stede and Cas (and Sam)

Stede and Cas are outsiders in their worlds, just a little bit out of touch with it: Stede lives in books and fantasy and is forced into societal expectations that are not truly him. Cas is an angel who has to learn the world of humans. (both can be read as neurodivergent)

Audience perception: audiences often HC them as neurodivergent.

Sam, Cas, and Stede are also accused of being selfish (and while this isn't 100% true, it is not to the extreme as sole claim it to be). Selfish has a negative connotation, but both acted in a way to get away from a bad situation, last extreme action. Sam leaves for college to get away from the hunter life and home situation that makes him uncomfortable. Stede also does the same thing, he leaves his home life for the sea. It is years of built up frustration and a last resort to get out of there. (We even learn in the pilot: "do you want to live?" "I don't know!" And Cas will leave to try to do things so. His own. Not including Dean and Sam because he's trying to protect them.

Izzy and John

Characteristics: now you would think the comparison would end before it started with John being the literal father of Dean and Izzy being a father-figure to Ed, but my friend, you have not forgotten to exclude ships in your searches. *Shudders* also, Ed looks at Izzy as a father-figure, while Izzy looks at him in a pseudosexual power thing with the Blackbeard.

Both of them represent the old ways, the man up, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps toxic masculinity. John causes both parentification and enmeshment with his oldest, Dean, Izzy caused Ed to keep up the Blackbeard persona for years past when he wanted/needed to. Izzy was based on Iago from Othello, and Salieri from Amadeus.

Audience: both are canonically abusive, emotionally and John is implied physically as well. Izzy is shown being physically abusive to others Fang and Black Pete. But a small group of fans will hand wave the abuse of both with the "they were just trying to do their best — trying to keep the subjects (of their abuse) alive in a rough world."

[formshaper]

[ PULL ]:  sender  pulls  receivers  hair. - Alan @ Merrick

It was the kind of weird, pseudosexual move that powerful men liked to pull to prove they were a threat. Merrick had seen his fair share of that kind of thing in the army: angry men liked to get physical, to bully up into each other's space and lay hands on each other to see who would freeze first. He'd never had much care for it then and had even less for it now. It was cold enough and high enough up here that his brain felt sluggish and frostbitten. His nerves felt like someone had gone over them with sandpaper, every sound or touch amplified: the lightest spark of pain felt like someone putting out cigarettes on his skin. Alan's hand yanking his hair was like a wildfire.

Refusing to give him the satisfaction of crying out, Merrick grabbed for the handle of his cane before he could go completely off balance--and drove it up hard into the underside of Alan's chin. If it came to real blows he didn't know what chance he'd stand. Ex-Navy or not, he had barely been able to walk for over a year and that kind of stillness made your muscles waste away.

But the moment his cane connected with Alan's jaw, Merrick felt powerful in a way he hadn't in years. The risk was worth it, just to feel strong again.

"Try that again," he warned, injecting as much frost into his voice as he could, "And we're going to have a problem."

[nikadd]

i only care about drama and having fun on the internet which is why i propose that jensen ackles should guest star on succession. im thinking he should be a beto o'rourke-type hot texas presidential hopeful democrat running against the roys' far right choice (you tell him he's gonna be texan and he would sign up asap)

here are my ideas for how the characters would have scenes/storylines with him:

logan: wishes that man didn't exist. i want the word "euthanize" to come out of brian cox's mouth.

connor: is 100% sure that he's a communist.

kendall: they went to college together. kendall keeps bringing up college-time memories and events in a very awkward and swagless way. jensen's character also has daddy issues so they gotta talk abt it at some point in some fucked up way. i think they should get drunk and just sit against a wall and talk shit about their fathers.

roman: on a recon mission to find out what's the deal with this dude bc roman's in a pseudosexual relationship with that nazi guy and so he has to protect his interests. a yet another homoerotic scene set in a public bathroom.

shiv: trying to use her democratic connections. they probably fucked a long time ago. she thinks it might work on him but no dice.

tom: somehow bothered over everyone talking how hot that guy is. has come up with a few choice fanciful words and descriptions for him. as he's team logan rn, has to deal with that dude but also delegates some of it to greg.

greg: is somehow almost recruited into jensen's character's campaign staff????? like he's having his west wing moment.

[pansexual-pied-piper]

I thought I would share this with people bc it's goddamn hilarious. It's from the AIDS Project Newsletter (1988), the entire thing can be found here:

https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=aids_newsletter

(Excuse the ugly link, I'm on mobile. Also shoutout to @posi-pan whom I stole the link off of and whose blog y'all should check out.)

A SEXUAL GLOSSARY By Diane White

Sexuality seems to get more and more confusing every day. There's the Boy George look, Michael Jackson as Peter Pan, Annie Lennox as him/herself, actors playing women, actresses playing men, bi's, trannies, androgynes, one-sex-fits-all.

Where will it all end? It probably never will. Meanwhile, here's a short glossary to help those who may be bewildered by the new trends and terms.

Ambisexual: Someone who is sexual on both the right and the left sides.

Antisexual: One who is militantly opposed to sex in any form.

A-sexual: Better than B-sexual or C-sexual. The highest grade.

Autosexual: (a) A person who wants himself all to himself, or (b) someone drawn to cars.

Bisexual: A person who engages in sexual activity once every two years. (See "semisexual" for comparison.)

Cinesexual: One who is addicted to sex in movies.

Circumsexual: (a) A person who is sexual on all sides, or (b) someone who likes to give others the runaround.

Disexual: A passionate admirer of the Princess of Wales.

Exsexual: Someone who engages in sex with a former spouse.

Extrasexual: (a) Somebody extremely sexy, or (b) a person who has a fling with a being from outer space, then sells his or her story to the National Enquirer.

Hypersexual: One who exaggerates his or her experience.

Hypnosexual: Someone who puts his or her partner to sleep. (Compare to "narcosexual")

Insexual: The opposite of outsexual, used to describe anything that's fashionable at the moment, such as androgyny.

Maxisexual: Popular leading man in countless X-rated movies.

Megasexual: Elephants. Whales too. And hippopotamuses.

Minisexual: What turns Mickey on.

Narcosexual: A person who falls asleep during sex.

Nonsexual: Someone who never says "Oui"

Omnisexual: People who are excited by back copies of Omni magazine.

Pansexual: Someone who emulates Michael Jackson.

Parasexual: (a) One who is qualified to advise about sex but not to engage in it, or (b) someone who engages in sex while (1) sky-diving or (2) holding a small umbrella to ward off the sun.

Phonosexual: A person who likes to talk about it on the telephone, preferably long-distance.

Pixisexual: One who is fond of elves. Polysexual: One who is turned on by manmade fibers.

Prosexual: (a) Someone in favor of sex, or (b) a classification (compared, for example, to "semiprosexual).

Protosexual: Pertaining to sexual etiquette.

Pseudosexual: A person who pretends to be interested in sex but isn't.

Quasisexual: (a) Something resembling sex, or (b) a person who's all talk.

Resexual: Somebody who's middle-age crazy.

Retrosexual: Someone who fantasizes about sex during the 50's.

Semisexual: One who engages in sex twice a year.

Stereosexual: A person who insists on wearing his Sony Walkman at all times.

Subsexual: (a) Sex involving small cars, or (b) what Robert Mitchum was in "The Enemy Below".

Synsexual: Something you shouldn't be doing.

Tautosexual: Pertaining to the pointless repetition of sex.

Trisexual: A person with whom sex is a trying experience.

[mars-ipan]

talking to my mom is such a blast. meeting of the minds

[mars-ipan]

ough periods are SO weird when ur genderfluid and sex ambivalent

[mars-ipan]

sometimes fanfic feels like a lovely walk in the park or a good cry on the shower floor. lately fanfic has been feeling like heavy bdsm

[mars-ipan]

they need to invent sex without the sex

[mars-ipan]

i need to do kink with my friends tbh

[mars-ipan]

as a mostly allo person i also think porn games (and porn in general tbh) are very funny!!!! sex is messy and the things that make ppl horny (myself included) are goofy as hell. it sucks ppl wld make you feel weird and awkward abt enjoying a video game. even if u did like it in a sex way that’s shitty, but i think its extra shitty that you’re being made to feel bad abt smth that doesn’t even apply to u.

anyways if u still want to play porn games without downloading them and have a pc, nutaku has a bunch of free ridiculous porn games you can play in browser. they range from visual novel/rpg to puzzle games to idle/management ones etc and i bet there’s even more that i don’t know abt. use an adblocker tho probably? its a legit site that won’t give u viruses afaik but i also haven’t been on it in years and when i did i had a heavy duty adblock so. have fun

anon you are the sweetest ever and this is so real and true of you

[mars-ipan]

are you ever hanging out and then u realize a daydream you had all the time growing up was actually totally a kink or. is that just me

[mars-ipan]

honestly as an ace. dating a somnophile would be so easy

[mars-ipan]

helppp i was telling a friend about my kmda crush and being all “the things i would do to him” etc etc bc i’m a Freak. and they were just Looking at me. and i was like “what’s that look mean.” and they go “everything you are describing i want someone to do to me” and we had a beautiful moment of freak solidarity. it was gorgeous

[mars-ipan]

marzis be like “yeah i’m fighting demons rn” and the demons be pseudosexuality