Was with Dan until "get a phone without a camera". If you don't trust her not to take advantage again, a no-camera phone isn't going to change that. You either trust her or you don't. I'd lean towards not.

I also think its time to do some individual therapy about the devotee thing. Hard for me to put myself in your shoes but you seem to feel squeamish about devotee in a very black and white way. I'd imagine there's a spectrum to devotees and by talking to someone, you may find that you're comfortable with someone in certain parts of that spectrum, someone where it's more attraction and less obsession. It just seems counterproductive to categorically throw out people who are super into you and I worry this experience will make you do that.

I would not leave the door open to take her back. If this fetish means so much to her and if she's been going on lying about it to such an extent, then it's likely a lot of your compatibility is also a lie- a way to keep her in your good graces so she can continue to enjoy her fetish.

I'm sure there are people out there who would be fine with it if she's up front about it. Otherwise, if she can't find someone like that openly, she needs to be more discreet about it when she's with someone. Since you explicitly stated that you were avoiding this, she's been massively violating. And posting the pics is waaaaayyy out of line.

Larry, the problem with this "It just seems counterproductive to categorically throw out people who are super into you" is that it assumes the other person is super into her and not just super into her disability and chair. Everyone has a type (or various types) and I agree that there could be some people in this category (devotees) who are no different than folks who happen to be mostly attracted to big boobs or anything else but it seems reasonable that people who are not into objectification would avoid people who have a serious fetish. If I had big breasts, I would not search for partners among people who fetishize big breasts unless I wanted my breasts to be fetishized. In fact, I'd avoid them. She will naturally attract more people who find women in wheelchairs attractive, but this is different than intentionally engaging with people who are primarily getting off by her being in a chair- especially since she started this entire letter by stating that she's spent her life striving to be viewed as more than that. It's terrible advice to suggest that this particular person should deliberately look for a primary partner among people with wheelchair fetishes.

What I mean is, "I find X feature attractive" is not the same as "I have a fetish for X feature". The fact that she's in a chair will naturally skew her dating pool towards the first but there is no reason for her to look to the second unless she wants to engage with that fetish. Which she doesn't.

There’s a BIG difference between “I want to date someone and I don’t mind that they are in a wheelchair” and “I want to date someone in a wheelchair”. OP is very much opposed to the latter. Her (please please soon-to-be-ex) is very much the latter, and actively lied about it to the OP. (I would bet money that she heard about OP from the mutual friend and weaseled her way into an introduction on other pretenses.) GF deserves nothing less than a one-way ticket to Dumpsville.

This is a request for permission, is it not? She's not really torn, it seems her feelings are well-personally informed (ie, she doesnt want to break up because she feels she's supposed to be hurt - she is hurt).

How about giving her the tools to empower herself?

Fucking return to fucking mentioning BEFORE the fucking letter that it's a re-run (I have no issue at all with re-runs, and yes, I did check at the end first, and it's gonna piss me off every single fucking day to fucking continue to fucking have to do that!).

The "devotee" subplot is just incidental and pandering. The GF lied and violated our poor dear GIMP's trust/privacy and obviously needed dumping.

Question to Dan and other commenters: would the advice be different if GIMP wasn't disabled? I'm pretty certain her dating pool is smaller than typical (wrongfully or rightfully). Would the same advice be given to a conventionally attractive cis hetero woman, who could snap her fingers (eg go on OkCupid, tinder, etc.) and have a line of eligible suiters?

In other words, should a wheelchair bound lesbian consider taking back the MF, because she's a wheelchair bound lesbian? This isn't a critique of DS, and I'm not sure what the answer is. If the pickings are slim to begin with, then maybe you give the MF another shot.

(When I dated), I didn't want to date people who happen to be women. I'm only attracted to women.

I didn't want to date just any woman, I'm only attracted to ones who are pretty smart.

I didn't want to date just any smart woman, I'm only attracted to ones who are very capable. And outdoorsy. Etc.

But my wish list is mainstream enough to be "tastes" and "preferences" even if they're also "must-haves". When does it become a "fetish"? When it gets unusual, like a disability? Like tall / short or big breasts / small breasts, is the devotee just the other end of the spectrum from my capable-strong-outdoorsy tastes?

Unless the LW limits herself to other chair-bound women, she's going to end up with someone more physically capable. Hopefully, they're attractive to her. Her partner will at least have to find her physical limits tolerable, what's wrong with seeing them as a desirable attribute?

I understand the "do you see me as ME or just an xxxxxx"? We want to be seen as individuals. It seems she was. Plus the attraction / kinky / fetish / call it what you will.

Yes, there are big trust issues now and I think Dan's approach has merit (if it hadn't been published and wasn't sure to be reposted in devotee circles). But had the GF correctly discerned the LW was extremely wary of devotees? And thought she could be careful enough not to sandpaper the LW's feelings?

Of course the LW gets to have her own requirements, but if devotees who ALSO see her as an individual are within her ability to accept, a long-term happy relationship seems more likely. A partner going from dating someone new and interesting to signing up for potentially a lifetime of limitations and caregiving (or not, maybe the LW would never want any help from a partner and can hire any help she needs) is a big barrier. One more likely to be hurdled if there's a win in it for the partner.

Again, the GF did wrong, posting the (neck down, clothed) pics, but looking at it in a charitable light, who else could she have excitedly reported to about how she'd find a great woman who was ALSO in a chair?

Old letter but I don't agree with this advice at all. Someone who can't be trusted with a camera can't be trusted with anything. Also in the future cameras will come attached to many more things than just phones. We can't even imagine right now the ways technology will make it possible to violate our privacy. You will probably have a camera installed directly in your eyeball if you live long enough.

@2, I don't agree. Fetishes aren't things we choose to have. Respect is something we choose to give people and you can give respect to anyone no matter what your fetishes are. I don't think someone with a wheelchair fetish is more likely to objectify her than a non fetishist would. You're not any safer with a non-fetishist and I think you're fooling yourself if you use criteria like that to determine how safe someone is. Women get objectified just for having a boring old vagina all the time. You're not a bad person for liking vaginas, but if the only reason you like someone is because of their physical qualities you might be an asshole. This is an issue that applies to my life because I've been well over the normal weight range for most of my life and outside what is considered attractive to most people. I don't have a problem with people who have a fetish for fat, although I am aware some of them are scumbags. That said if the LW feels uncomfortable being regarded as "different" or "special" it's perfectly logical and okay for her to prefer non-fetishists. If she dates a devotee she will never not be "the one in the wheelchair" and she clearly isn't okay with that, no matter how nice the devotee might be. I think this has more to do with her self image which is deeper than how she feels about devotees specifically.

Jellob: Good Q. Maybe I've got some able-ist thinking going on, "Her best strategy may include settling for not everything on her list (i.e. her insistence on no devotees)". Or is that just being practical?

What would we say to a not-conventionally attractive guy who wants to date/marry only really hot women? Be a really good singing/songwriter like Lyle Lovett? Wouldn't we suggest he expand his dating pool? Or accept a high chance of being single?

@9 "Again, the GF did wrong, posting the (neck down, clothed) pics, but looking at it in a charitable light, who else could she have excitedly reported to about how she'd find a great woman who was ALSO in a chair?"

Seriously? You can report on your life without taking photos, it's called text.

Last Comment, it's irrelevant if the fetish is involuntary or not. The point is that the LW does not want to be with someone with this fetish, has deliberately avoided people with this fetish, etc. And her gf has this fetish, indulged in it with her, lied to her about it, etc. LW has every right to choose not to be with someone who has this fetish, regardless of whether or not the fetish-haver chooses to have it. The fact that you or I might feel differently is irrelevant- the LW has a right to not be with someone with this fetish. I was simply making a distinction between someone with a fetish and someone who happens to be attracted to someone who has a quality that someone else fetishizes. I'm not making any wider claims about which is safer or more likely to be nice vs be an asshole. In my opinion, the honest fetish-haver is as likely to be a decent human being as anyone else. But a lying fetish-haver is not to be trusted in the future. My distinction was about whether or not the person wanted aspects of their appearance to be fetishized. If they do not (as the LW stated emphatically that she does not) then it would not make sense for her to be open to dating people with a wheelchair fetish. You wouldn't mind someone who fetishized your weight, in which case it would make sense to you to be open to people with that fetish. But the LW does mind.

@14 I don't know if you finished reading my comment but I thought I made it clear it's fine for her to choose to avoid devotees in her life. I responded to you with a defense of fetishists because you seem to be arguing someone with a fetish is more likely to objectify than someone without one. In my view someone with a fetish for wheelchairs isn't much different than someone with a sexual preference for women in general.

The only way I think being disabled makes this situation different is, I think she should take untrustworthy behavior more seriously than most people would. It's really easy for disabled people to get taken advantage of.

I did read your comment, and I'm not sure what I said that makes you think that. In the specific, I'm referring to this particular untrustworthy and manipulative woman. More generally, a fetish is by definition when a person's sexuality is linked to an object or body part. That does not mean a person with a fetish objectifies another PERSON, but it certainly - by definition- means they objectify the body part or object the other person has. As I stated, this doesn't mean they aren't also attracted to the person more generally (and of course they can be honest and complex and kind people just like anyone else) but it is different than a general preference, and a person who is not into (or at least neutral about) having whatever particular feature objectified isn't going to be a good fit for a person who fetishizes that particular feature.

So in short- "you seem to be arguing someone with a fetish is more likely to objectify than someone without one"- why yes. This is the very definition of a fetish. This doesn't mean they will objectify the person, but absolutely they would be objectifying the feature of the fetish or else it would not be a fetish in the first place.

"You can't be a lesbian about this." Hehe. I'd be mad if he weren't so fucking right.

Yeah, the devotee stuff is window dressing to the fundamental issue. I mean, I don’t like people posting my photo to Facebook without clearing it. Someone clandestinely taking my picture, whatever their intentions? Super sketchy. Then posting the secret pictures to a sexual website? I’m done. Someone who was dating me, who knew I had a lifelong aversion to catering to that fetish? So completely cancelled. It shows the GF does not perceive or value the LW’s subjectivity; she only objectifies her, utterly disregarding her explicitly stated point of view. I would be tempted to press charges. I would never allow myself to be in camera range of that person ever again.

I remember this letter and the comments it (and the rest of the comments for that column) it inspired. That was a good conversation.

A) Do not break up with someone with the idea that maybe you can get back together in the future. If you are going to break up, break up. If you are going to get back together after therapy and time, then set that as a condition right from the get-go. Don’t play games with love. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

B) Soon to be ex girlfriend posted photos, but at least they were not nudes and did not show your face. So, there was a degree of restraint possibly motivated by a (iffy) form of respect? You want someone who is attracted to you, but in reality, the chair is part of who you are. I am guessing that divorce is have a wide spectrum of attraction...( I love you mainly because you are in a wheelchair, I love you and that wheelchair is an added bonus, etc) You get to decide. Was this an unforgivable step over the line or was this an opportunity to see if the two of you can work through the tough issues all couples face?

Devotees, not “divorce”... stupid voice recognition!

You sound a little unhinged curious @7. Dan is not going to jump to attention because you’re throwing a fit about it. Chill out.
All these questions and Dan’s answers are pertinent, doesn’t matter when they were written.
Someone out there is dealing with this issue, now, as well as yrs ago.

What a sad letter and what sort of woman would violate like this. Sounds like an alcoholic falling off the wagon, or lying about getting on it. To do this to a person with a disability, whatever the impulse and excuse, is a low low act. I hope the LW did DTMFA. No second chances with this sort of person.

Larry @1: Also, might have been possible in 2012 but definitely not possible today.

David @9: Good comment. This particular woman violated GIMP's trust in what may be an unforgivable way, but GIMP may want to rethink her hard boundary excluding devotees. Being in a chair is going to be a negative for most people; why blanket exclude people for whom it's a positive? I say this both as someone with fetishes for physical attributes and with the potential to be fetishised for unusual features. Isn't it better to be fancied -because of- X than -despite- X? Agree, fetishes aren't chosen and don't make you a bad person. Treating someone like an object because they are in a chair is no different to treating them like an object because they have a vagina (good point, TLC @10). I get why GIMP is wary, but as she herself says she's not sure what about devotees bothers her so much, it seems worth exploring with a therapist so she can maybe get to a point where she can accept someone's fetish as part of who they are, not all of who they are. (Sound familiar?)

I remember this one when it was first on. I also remember it turned out to be a fake letter. Not sure why it got repeated.

Whether or not the LW can resolve how she feels about devotees, this woman betrayed her, and needed to be dumped.

Mr Kenai - That's very interesting, as your version of attraction sounds like a pass-fail course. Do you only BECOME attracted to a woman when she ticks all the must-have boxes or do you only REMAIN attracted to such a woman? I always felt as if it were some sort of points system - plus so many points for certain tastes, skills or attributes; minus so many points for others; gather enough information and see at the end whether the score is high enough.

Ms Fan - Might that depend on how much one liked or disliked one's X? And a run of people who were attracted because of one's X and who happened also to be creeps (unrelatedly) might well push someone to at least a temporary wish to be found attractive despite X instead. In some cases, too, being attractive "because of X" could tie one to something one might want or be trying to change.

@22 LavaGirl
"You sound a little unhinged curious @7. Dan is not going to jump to attention because you’re throwing a fit about it."

That would be a shame, so I hope you're wrong. Over a number of days I and others did first ask politely. In any case, I won't ask another fucking time.

Roseanne @26 is right: Dan announced in a later column that GIMP's letter had been a fake:

https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14208958

He even apologised to the devotee community for unknowingly publishing a fake letter that played on the negative stereotypes and social stigma around their sexuality:

"So while the news that GIMP's letter is fake will come as a comfort to everyone who thought my advice for GIMP sucked, it's cold comfort for all the good and decent devotees out there who had to see yet another story about a shitty—and, in this case, completely fictitious—devotee make it into print. My apologies."

So yeah, pretty weird that he decided to run it again 7 years later, with no comment about the letter's authenticity. I can only assume he forgot.

This letter may be fake, but its implications about the danger of fetishizing/being fetishized to the point of it being objectifying and unsafe is very real.

It may not be QUITE the same territory, but it reminds me of the way one of my ex-boyfriends used to treat me when he found out I was a masochist. It became this "thing" he used to show off in front of his friends, either letting them in when I was in a compromising situation, or suddenly saying to them something along the lines of "watch this" and then suddenly smashing me hard across the face, and then explaining to his friends why it was "okay", even though I was angry as hell about it.

It got to be such a problem that one of his friends seemed to think that if I'd take him on, I'd take him, too, and eventually tried to force his way into my house. It got me stalked and pursued by someone who objectified me to an even WORSE degree than my boyfriend did, thanks to the way that he treated me in front of him. The bottom line is that when you allow people to present you like an object, you MUST be aware that someone out there might be capable of seeing you as nothing BUT that. If you're with someone who fetishizes you because thus-and-such, be wary enough to set up ground rules, and STICK to them like glue.

@29, curious. You think you or others have the right to ask/tell Dan to change how he runs his site? Rude as.

@32 LavaGirl
"You think you or others have the right to ask/tell Dan to change how he runs his site?"

Of course we have a right to ask for the change to be reversed. (Dan's site is our community.)

"Rude as."

Asking is not rude. I shouldn't have to tell you that. (You aren't a secret doormat are you?) And telling me it's rude is rude.

Was it rude for me to express that I'm pissed off at the change? The way I did it, sure. But expressing anger is still not necessarily wrong to do, it can be healthy. Don't be a baby.

I’m not being a baby curious. It’s you behaving like a child throwing a tantrum. It’s obvious Dan has changed how he’s presenting old letters. You stamping your feet in protest, everywhere, is pathetic.

Fake or not, this letter is credible and it focuses on areas of human intimacy which effects a lot of people, namely disabilities. Should she rise her boom to let devotees thru, or is that relationship more about their fetish than the person? I guess a person with a foot fetish wouldn’t get together with someone who had no feet.

Sorry curious, this isn’t a therapy group. Healthy anger, if one can call it that, yes, sometimes it has to get out. It rises often on these pages, usually around topics brought up thru letters.
The format is out of our control. Dan is the boss here, however he plays it.

Vennom@28: Them being a woman and being smart are must-haves for me (so far - maybe I just haven't met the right dumb guy?). Strong and accomplished are more like point system, but worth a lot of points. I could imagine everything else they offered and who they were carrying the day over those attributes. A lot of body types have ticked those boxes for me - tall, short, slim, large. This traits are more of how I become attracted to them, while their behavior and how we interact may (or may not) maintain the attraction.

@LavaGirl
"...unhinged...Rude as_____...behaving like a child throwing a tantrum...stamping your feet in protest, everywhere, is pathetic..."

I sure wish you'd keep your lava (that /must/ be where your username truly comes from) to yourself. Is it that /you/ want to be the only rude (and in your case mean and unhinged) person here?

Now go ahead, send a whole bunch of relies. But I'm thinking that now /you/ have joined the ranks of people best ignored.

oops "relies" should be "replies"

@31 There's a big difference between being objectified and being abused - you were downright abused, which is horrible for anyone. The kind of guys you encountered will always find a reason to abuse you, that's what they're after from the start. I'm sure your antennae are sensitive enough to them now that you can drop them immediately.

Objectifying in itself is not always bad, though. Most men I know like being objectified sometimes. Not abused, but certainly treated like sex objects in some circumstances. As Boyd MacDonald said, "I'm not just a human being, I'm also a piece of meat, and I expect to be treated like one."

@40 I'd also like to point out that cruising, catcalling, propositioning and in fact most sexual encounters between men are very different than the same kind of encounters between men and women. There just isn't violence or the threat of violence involved - when men say no to another man, the other man almost always just accepts the no as no. If he doesn't - everyone is shocked, because that's totally abnormal behavior, and if it's someone in the community he gets shunned. So it's easier, probably, for men to enjoy being treated like a piece of meat, because the usual result is pleasure - not stalking or violence.

Catcalls from gay bashers to gay men before they attack are probably more like what women are talking about when they talk about objectification - it's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that that is "normal" straight guy behavior.

Ms Lava - You may have more cause to celebrate soon. The WTA's interesting week in Birmingham, which had already produced the first match ever between identical twins (the Pliskovas; Kristina, ranked out of the top 100, upset #3 Karolina in a third-set tie-break which included Karolina's double fault to give Kristina her first match point and Kristina's double fault to even the score before she won the next and last two points), has now seen another development. Ms Osaka's early loss has put the #1 ranking within Ms Barty's reach.

@40, you're not wrong; I had to get through hell, but now I know what's coming my way before their shadow ever falls over me.

And, of course, it can be a fun and flattering thing to feel like an object or a living sexual fantasy...I definitely understand what makes that so desirable to men (us women, and ungendered/fluidly gendered persons too), but the point is that there still have to be clear boundary lines drawn in the sand, and as far as this fake-ass letter made it look, they just weren't there.

Anyone who doesn't hate the idea of playing to someone's fetish should absolutely go with it...but simply make their boundary lines unmistakably clear. If a sexual partner can't abide by them, they need to GO. And as several others have pointed out, 100%, if they can't even be trusted to have a CAMERA in their position, they're unlikely to ever be able to earn and keep your trust to a much greater degree than that.

I know this letter is a few years old but man I hope the LW dumped her girlfriend for good. I just can't see resuming a relationship with someone who violated your trust in such a major way. Good grief, the girlfriend misled her about being a devotee and then POSTED PICS OF HER on the internet!??! Even if her face wasn't showing, that is a MAJOR, HUGE trust violation. No, just no, no, no, no, no to giving the girlfriend a second chance, no matter how much therapy or soul-searching she does. I hope the LW DTMFA'd the woman permanently.

pollyc @31/44

I'm so sorry this happened to you, and I hope karmic justice has caught up with those shitstains. I agree with ECarpenter that what you are describing sounds like abuse and domestic violence, rather than fetishisation/objectification, and it probably would have happened regardless of whether you were masochist or not, and how clear you were about your boundaries. I've been dating kinky people exclusively for the last 8 years - sadists, sadomasochists, and fetishists included - and not one of them thought it was ok to just whack someone non-consensually across the face and then laugh about it with their friends.

I also think that if you have to "draw clear boundary lines" in a relationship, and then "stick to them like glue", chances are you are already dating a selfish, manipulative asshole, and no amount of clarity would fix that. Assholes will always manage to twist your words or find loopholes to suit their agenda, whatever that may be. In the case of the LW (if we take it at face value), the violation was non-consensual taking and sharing of pictures, which is wrong regardless of whether they were shared on vanilla or fetish sites. The devotee angle is more of a red herring than a red flag, IMO.

Chris111 @45, turns out the letter is not only old, but fake (see my comment @30). I wouldn't get too worked up about it.

Venn @28: Of course "it depends" is always the answer for any generalisation. I suspect you may be talking about weight. Sure, someone who is trying to lose weight is not going to be too thrilled to meet a chubby chaser/feeder. But being in a chair is something the fake GIMP cannot change. And of course, meeting a series of shitty people with [insert quality here] will put a person off people with [quality], fairly or unfairly, whether that's a fetish for your unusual attribute or a love of opera.

Margarita @30: Yes, that's disappointing. Perhaps it was a staffer who re-ran the letter, unaware of its later debunking.

It's also staffers, not Dan, who decide on the website layout. And it's not rude to ask for an improvement to be made -- how would anyone ever improve their service if not by listening to requests from customers/users? We could all fume silently about it or we could suggest a change. Curious2 has done nothing wrong in expressing his frustration with a frustrating format change.

PollyC @31: I'm sorry that happened to you. Lots of assholes around and yes, wanting to be hurt does leave you probably more open than most to people who want to hurt you in the wrong ways.

ECarpenter @41: Well observed. There is always an element of threat from a strange man who is physically stronger and more powerful than you. Lots of straight men just don't get this, but your analogy to the kind of salutation one might receive just prior to a gay bashing is a good one. You are right though that being objectified, consensually, can be a great turn-on. One need only look to lingerie sales to conclude that women enjoy being objectified in the right circumstances as well.

BiDanFan,

I think you and others have a misconception about people in wheelchairs. You say that it is something that cannot be changed, but it is actually much less black and white than that.

I am handicapped and use a wheelchair most of the time, but I can also walk for short distances. I've gone (adaptive)cycling with a quadriplegic who could briefly stand and lean against a wall in a park bathroom to deal with a catheter she had to clean. I worked with a paraplegic who was mostly in a wheelchair but could also get around on crutches when he needed to use some equipment.

How much a person can do these things, and so how active and independent they can be, depends on their disability but also on their equipment, drugs, physical therapy, the setup of the environment, and any logistical workarounds that they figure out.

A handicapped person needs a partner who is tolerant of that person's limits but who will support any efforts to become as active and independent as possible. A devotee would not have the right motivations to do this.

Being attracted to people in wheelchairs is not similar to being attracted to breasts or a vagina or a large nose. It's more similar to being attracted to people who are agoraphobic. It sounds scary to me.

@48 - Thanks for your insight Imr, that's an excellent point.

I agree with #2. Perfect people who turn out to be liars are usually also lying about how 'perfect' they are. Run.

@48 That seems similar to the more extreme end of feederism. It's not just about watching someone eat a pie, it's about making them gain so much weight that they become completely dependent on the feeder.

Anybody who desires that level of control over another person should be avoided at all costs. That's not a kink, it's sociopathy.

sanuisuga: yep, a control fetish PLUS consent/privacy violations with those photos. Nope.

Ms Fan - My first thought was actually recalling something that wasn't specifically about devotees but seemed to lend itself - a Cold Case episode in which a non-hearing teenager was killed after he got a cochlear implant. And my best friend's son was in a similar position to the subsequent poster's after being in a terrible car accident. After spending a period of time basically confined to a chair, he was able to regain a bit of activity for about five years before taking a turn for the worse and becoming bedridden.

Ms Lava - Well, that was quick, getting the #1 ranking on her first opportunity. And not only had it been nearly 43 years, but Ms Goolagong's #1 ranking had to be bestowed in retrospect, as it was only some years later that it was noticed some of her points were never posted to the WTA computer at the time. What an oopsie. Enjoy your Barty Party! (even if that does make me keep hearing the line from Muriel's Wedding that sounds as if Cheryl or Janine is saying, "Potty, potty, potty!")

It's entirely reasonable, in theory, not to want to be with someone who views a central part of your personhood as a fetish. This was the LW's position before she met her deceptive gf. Being in a chair is and means many things to her, no doubt--it's sometimes a limitation and sometimes a form of empowerment, and a social identity, and it makes for a non-typical relation to others; but one thing it is not, prior to anything else, is a fetish. She doesn't want her chair to be somebody's wankstrop. Why should it be?

I'm not sure I would give this woman another chance. (My instincts are very like EmmaLiz's @3). Why didn't she disclose she was a devotee during the first or second date? Or, when the LW was upfront with something like 'I'm suspicious of devotees', say something like, 'I think there's a range'.

@10. TheLastComment. Exactly. Whatever someone's like (in sex, gender, sexuality, body-image, age, race, ableness/disability and other terms), it should always be possible for them to say, honorably, 'no--I want someone interested in me for myself'. This is all our prerogative.

@9. David. Did her gf post them to fetishism sites? She searched Google Images. Are there pictures of her having sex in her chair on the dark Web?

@25. Bi. 'Treating someone like an object because they are in a chair is no different to treating them like an object because they have a vagina...'.

It's a little different because women are socially constructed as having a more capacious identity than wheelchair-users. That is, in many casual or superficial encounters, someone can look at a woman and see (or allow for) many other characteristics besides femininity, while being classed as physically disabled is more unfairly constraining in terms of the expectations people may have of you. A wheelchair user may then feel with more urgency and force of decision, 'no, I don't just to be fetishised for the chair'.

@36. Lost Margarita (& @26 Roseanne). Thank you for the information about the original letter being fake. I don't think fake letters should be rerun.

/break/
At some level, I think people should be with others, should be their life-partners, their exclusive romantic partners, because they're drawn to the 'whole package'. Sure, some devotees always want to be with someone physically impaired. Some het men want to be with pneumatic blondes. But there are lots of wheelchair users in the world. Lots of pneumatic blondes. Anyone in practice must make a decision of life-partnership on grounds broader than sexual attraction. If attraction powered by an irresistible fetish is all you feel, then fuck round--don't have relationships.

@40. ECarpenter. There's a fine dividing line between being someone's 'type', when that type is a confirmed minority taste, even in subcultural spaces--and taking pleasure and pride, even a sort of pleasurable abjection in being so objectified--and feeling that you're only the means by which someone is scratching their kinky itch.

When I was on gay scenes (more than 15 years ago now), I was a readily identifiable type--and expected to find my audience (and, equally importantly, to be accepted in a spirit of queer solidarity by those with zero sexual interest in me). But, for instance, in casual sexual encounters, I would also draw guys who wanted to praise, joke about or mock my small dick (not a microdick but probably on the precipitous downslope of size). This was not OK with me. We had a dialog of the deaf--they didn’t understand why their comments weren't taken as hot, playful or affectionate; and I didn’t grasp how my presentation might have been taken to signal accommodating this kink. I wasn't looking for a relationship anyways. But given that my manner was effeminate and is matronly, that I couldn't avoid queering the gender boundary if I tried, am I reasonable in not wanting to appeal sexually or romantically to someone on the basis of 'likely anomalous genitalia'? I think I am--entirely. Appearance and personal style and gender are matters of culture; they're things we choose, curate, cultivate. They're us in our subjectivity. Dick size? Not in the same way.