Abstract
In 1977 John Money published the first modern case histories of what he called ‘apotemnophilia’, literally meaning ‘amputation love’ [Money et al., The Journal of Sex Research, 13(2):115–12523, 1977], thus from its inception as a clinically authorized phenomenon, the desire for the amputation of a healthy limb or limbs was constituted as a sexual perversion conceptually related to other so-called paraphilias. This paper engages with sex-based accounts of amputation-related desires and practices, not in order to substantiate the paraphilic model, but rather, because the conception of these (no doubt) heterogeneous desires and practices as symptoms of a paraphilic condition (or conditions) highlights some interesting cultural assumptions about ‘disability’ and ‘normalcy’, their seemingly inherent (un)desirability, and their relation to sexuality. In critically interrogating the socio-political conditions that structure particular desires and practices such that they are lived as improper, distressing and/or disabling, the paper constitutes an exercise in what Margrit Shildrick [Beyond the body of bioethics: Challenging the conventions. In M. Shildrick and R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), Ethics of the body: Postconventional challenges (pp. 1–26). New York: MIT Press, 2005] refers to as “postconventional ethics”.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Both Blanchard and Lawrence claim that so-called homosexual MTFs “tend to naturally resemble persons with the embodiment or status they desire (i.e. women)”, and that “this natural resemblance provides an obvious rationale for sex reassignment surgery” ([16], p. 266).
There are derogatory terms such as ‘rice queen’, ‘snow queen’, ‘sticky rice’, ‘coconut’, and so on that are used to refer to forms and practices of desire presumed to be ‘race’-based, and other than ideal. However, such terms are found primarily in sub-cultural communities and are not institutionally authorised in the same way or to the same extent that medicalised (pathologising) terms are.
References
Abel, G. G., & Osborn, C. A. (2000). The paraphilias. In G. Gelder, J. J. Lopez-Ibor Jr., & N. C. Andreasen (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychiatry, volume 1 (pp. 897–913). London: Oxford University Press.
Aguilera, R. (2000). Disability and Delight: Staring Back at the Devotee Community. Sexuality and Disability, 18(4), 255–261.
Ahmed, S. (2006). Orientations: Toward a queer phenomenology. GLQ, 12(4), 543–574.
Blanchard, R., Clemmensen, L. H. & Steiner, B. W. (Eds.) (1985). Social desirability response set and systematic distortion in the self-report of adult male gender patients. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 14, 5–16.
Bruno, R. L. (1997). Devotees, pretenders, and wannabes: Two cases of factitious disability disorder. Sexuality and Disability, 15(4), 243–260.
Diprose, R. (1995). The body biomedical ethics forgets. In P. Komesarof (Ed.), Troubled bodies: Critical perspectives on postmodernism, medical ethics, and the body (pp. 202–221). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Duncan, K., & Goggin, G. (2002). Something in your belly: Fantasy, disability and desire in my one-legged dream lover. Disability Studies Quarterly, 22(4), 127–144.
Fiduccia, B. F. W. (1999). Sexual imagery of physically disabled women: Erotic? Perverse? Sexist? Sexuality and Disability, 17(3), 277–282.
First, M. (2005). Desire for amputation of a limb: Paraphilia, psychosis, or a new type of identity disorder. Psychological Medicine, 35, 919–928.
Furth, G., & Smith, R. (2002). Amputee identity disorder: Information, questions, answers, and recommendations about self-demand amputation. London: 1st Books.
Gatens, M. (1996). Imaginary bodies: Ethics, power and corporeality. London: Routledge.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper & Row.
Hope, T. (2004). Medical ethics: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Komesaroff, P. (1995). Postmodern medical ethics? In P. Komesarof (Ed.), Troubled bodies: Critical perspectives on postmodernism, medical ethics, and the body (pp. 1–19). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Kraft-Ebing, R. (1965). Psychopathia Sexualis. London: Staples.
Lawrence, A. (2006). Clinical and theoretical parallels between desire for limb amputation and gender identity disorder. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 35(3), 263–278.
Lawrence, A. ‘Men trapped in men’s bodies’: An introduction to the concept of autogynephilia. Retrieved from http://swipnet.se/∼w-13968/autogynephilia.html.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2002). The phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge C. Smith (trans).
Money, J. (1984). Paraphilias: Phenomenology and classification. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 38(2), 164–178.
Money, J., Jobaris, R., & Furth, G. (1977). Apotemnophilia: Two cases of self-demand amputation as paraphilia. The Journal of Sex Research, 13(2), 115–125.
Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shildrick, M. (2005). Beyond the body of bioethics: Challenging the conventions. In M. Shildrick, & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), Ethics of the body: Postconventional challenges (pp. 1–26). New York: MIT.
Singer, P. (1995). Rethinking life and death: The collapse of our traditional ethics. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Singer, P. (1995). How are we to live?: Ethics in the age of self-interest. London: Prometheus.
Singer, P. (1999). Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, R. (2004). Amputee identity disorders and related paraphilias. Psychiatry, 3(8), 27–30.
Solvang, P. (2007). The amputee body desired: Beauty destabilized? Disability re-valued? Sexuality and Disability, 25(2), 51–64.
Sullivan, N. (2008). The role of medicine in the (Trans)Formation of ‘Wrong’ bodies. Body & Society, 14(1), 103–114.
Sullivan, N. (2007). “The price to pay for our common good”: Genital modification and the somatechnologies of cultural (In)Difference. Social Semiotics, 17(3), 395–409.
Sullivan, N. (2005). Integrity, mayhem and the question of self-demand amputation. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 19(3), 325–333.
Tremain, S. (2000). Queering disabled sexuality studies. Sexuality and Disability, 18(4), 291–299.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sullivan, N. Dis-orienting Paraphilias? Disability, Desire, and the Question of (Bio)Ethics. Bioethical Inquiry 5, 183–192 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-008-9097-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-008-9097-2