Every faith tradition produces at least one woman whose reputation eventually eclipses her biography.

Christianity, industrious as ever, has several.

But none has traveled farther—through pulpits, women’s conferences, Pinterest boards, private doubts, and tense marital conversations—than the Proverbs 31 woman.

She appears only once in Scripture.

Not in a narrative, not in a theological treatise, but in a poem—a Hebrew acrostic, the ancient equivalent of dedicating the alphabet to one person. A portrait of wisdom in full bloom: economic, moral, emotional, embodied.

And yet, by the time she arrives in couples therapy, she often looks nothing like the woman in the poem.

She arrives as a brand.
A mandate.
A lifestyle aspiration with a side of guilt.
A doctrinal mascot for exhausted women.
A nostalgic fantasy for certain men.

Which is impressive, given that she didn’t ask for any of it.

Fictosexuality refers to enduring romantic or sexual attraction to fictional characters. Not a fleeting crush. Not a “well, he is pretty cute for a cartoon lion.”

Not a temporary fever brought on by binge-reading too many fantasy novels at 2 a.m.

Fictosexuality is:

• persistent.
• meaningful.
• experienced as a legitimate orientation.
• emotionally loaded.
• psychologically coherent.
• and—for many people—central to their sense of identity.

Researchers studying sexual identity formation have long noted that desire can occur toward persons, archetypes, symbols, and imagined others (Berlant & Edelman, 2014). Fictosexuality is simply the contemporary form of this ancient phenomenon.

It is not pathology.
It is not delusion.
It is not failure.
It’s just the human imaginative capacity doing its usual overachieving thing.

Every era invents new language for longing.

Victorians had swooning.
Millennials had situationships.

Gen Z has turned desire into a full-time classification project—half anthropology, half fandom studies, half committee meeting.

And now, from the unruly compost pile of digital culture, we meet the newest micro-label: berrisexual.

A word so charmingly absurd it feels pre-approved for a tote bag.

But as always, behind the joke is something earnest: a very old human ache dressed in new pixels.

To understand berrisexuality, we must understand its lineage: fictosexuality, nijikon, parasocial attachment, and the centuries-long tradition of falling in love with beings who do not strictly exist.

As scholars of sexual identity construction note, desire often expands faster than language, which is why new terms emerge at cultural flashpoints, as explored in Barker’s analysis of sexual identity labels (Barker, 2016) and in Fahs’s work on naming practices and desire (Fahs, 2019).

So let’s begin—with affectionate bemusement for the human heart and its unfettered enthusiasms.

Every society has a word it weaponizes and later pretends to regret.

The f-slur is ours.

It has lived many lives—bludgeon, joke, code, seduction, provocation, elegy. We declared it dead several times. No one believed us.

The word has returned, not sheepishly but triumphantly.

It appears on theater marquees, in gallery titles, across queer gaming circles, inside performance art manifestos. It is a ghost with tenure.

And like all ghosts, it only appears when the living have unresolved business.

The f-slur survives because the culture that produced it never dismantled the conditions that made it necessary. A slur is not a word. It is a system reporting on itself.

And this system is very much still here.

In corporate America, persuasion is treated as a kind of moral arithmetic: if you collect enough strong evidence, arrange it neatly, and speak clearly, the audience should—by some unwritten code of professional decency—agree with you.

This belief persists despite decades of meetings proving the opposite.

If persuasion were determined by argument strength, quarterly planning sessions would be triumphs of logic rather than long-form testimonials to human impatience.

A 2022 study in Frontiers in Psychology—from Roman Linne, Jannis Hildebrandt, Gerd Bohner, and Hans-Peter Erb—offers an explanation so unflattering it feels like a diagnosis: people don’t respond to your argument; they respond to the sequence in which you slip it past their nervous system.

Professionals polish arguments with jeweler-like fussiness.
They should instead be rearranging them with jeweler-like cunning.

There are body parts we proudly display—jawlines, clavicles, legs—and then there’s the armpit: evolution’s quiet overachiever, hidden under cotton and deodorant and centuries of polite denial.

But biologically, psychologically, and erotically?
The armpit is loud.

It broadcasts information.
It shapes attraction.
It influences bonding.
And yes—it can be erotic in a deeply scientific way.

Let’s walk straight into the research most people pretend doesn’t exist, while keeping this appropriately trauma-informed, and grounded in peer-reviewed human behavior science.

If you want to understand any sexual behavior—why we do it, why we pretend we don’t do it, and why epidemiologists have been nervously clearing their throats about it for forty years—you have to begin with a basic anthropological truth:

Humans will try almost anything once, and twice if nobody panics.

Anal sex has spent decades sitting in the corner wearing a trench coat and sunglasses, treated primarily as a public-health hazard rather than a human behavior with motives, meaning, and (for many) genuinely rewarding sensation.

When researchers finally stopped hyperventilating long enough to ask why people actually do it, an interesting thing happened:

The data told a story far more ordinary—and far more revealing—than anyone expected.

Let’s begin at the beginning: prevalence.

If you want to understand the fragile beauty of human psychology, don’t look at brain scans or meditation retreats.

Look at the Milan, Italy subway, where a man dressed as Batman recently doubled the rate at which commuters offered their seat to a pregnant woman.

It is one of the most charming, rigorous, and quietly revolutionary demonstrations of the Batman Effect—a phenomenon where unexpected events disrupt commuter autopilot and trigger prosocial behavior.

Let’s go deeper, because the effect is not just funny or heartwarming.

I

t’s a rare, real-world glimpse into how the human brain manages attention, how novelty triggers present-moment awareness, and how social contagion spreads prosocial cues through a crowd without anyone realizing what’s happening.

This is not comic-book morality. This is neuroscience, urban psychology, and the exquisitely delicate machinery of human perception—disguised in a cape.

There comes a point in every long-term relationship when you discover you are no longer the sole proprietor of your emotional life.

You wake up fine—perhaps even optimistic, which is already suspicious.
The coffee is decent. Nothing hurts. You think: Maybe today will behave itself.

And then your partner walks in.

Not yelling.
Not upset.

Just… placing their keys on the counter in a way your nervous system interprets as a prelude to war.

Suddenly, you are stressed too.

This is not pathology.
This is not poor boundaries.
This is not “being too attuned.”

This is something far more democratic and far less voluntary: bio-behavioral synchrony—the process by which two nervous systems begin sharing emotional data like a couple on a family phone plan.

It’s the reason couples can have entire conversations without speaking.

It’s also why one person’s anxiety can detonate the whole household.

Before you ever get to the Utah mountains where Brian Wittke died, you have to understand a quieter geography: the map of his nervous system.

He was a commercial airline pilot, a father of three, and by all accounts a conscientious professional.

He also lived inside an industry where admitting to depression feels, for many pilots, like handing over your wings.

According to his mother, he worried that seeking treatment would cost him his license and his livelihood, a fear echoed by dozens of pilots interviewed in recent reporting on aviation and mental health.

On June 14, 2022, he disappeared. His mother texted and watched his location data vanish, then reappear—too late. By the time his phone told the truth about where he was, he had died by suicide in the Utah mountains.

A trauma-informed lens does not ask, “Why did he do this?” as if it were an isolated, inscrutable decision. It asks:

• What chronic pressures was he carrying?

• What did his body and brain have to absorb to keep flying?

• And what did the system do—or fail to do—with that load?

Because trauma isn’t just what happens to you. It’s also what happens inside you when you are trapped between competing threats: lose your career or lose your mind.

Pilots are not just stressed.

They occupy a textbook high-risk environment for cumulative trauma, moral injury, and chronic hyperarousal. But the way aviation handles mental health often adds trauma instead of relieving it.

Let’s unpack that.

There are quiet moments in modern life when you realize the technology has outrun the species.

Not by a little.
By miles.

It’s the moment you see someone talking lovingly to a phone screen.
Or when you realize your smartwatch understands your stress better than your spouse.
Or when you catch yourself feeling grateful for a notification.

But the real turning point arrived when people began forming attachments to folks they do not actually know — and their nervous systems failed to object.

The body, ever eager, simply said:
“Oh, attention! Oh, possibility! Oh, someone who might care!”
And from there, it was off to the races.

Welcome to the new sexual attachment system: parasocial intimacy — the kind that feels mutual, behaves reciprocal, and isn’t either.

This is not a glitch in human evolution.
It’s the predictable outcome of a world that monetizes attention and calls it connection.

There is a phrase that belongs in the Museum of Things Therapists No Longer Believe: Relax. It’s just porn.

That line worked when porn was a static product—when erotic content was one-directional, not designed to talk back, and incapable of forming a simulation of intimacy.

But OnlyFans is not porn.

OnlyFans is a relational technology—a system that simulates attachment, personal attention, erotic attunement, and emotional responsiveness. It is designed to feel like connection because connection is the product.

The research—still emerging, but powerful—confirms this.

Studies now argue that OnlyFans is not simply “NSFW content delivered via subscription” but a new ecosystem of digital intimacy, parasocial attachment, sexual learning, identity experimentation, and emotional labor (Hamilton et al., 2023; Lippmann et al., 2023; Tynan & Linehan, 2024).

And because it is relational, not merely sexual, its blast radius is relational as well: marriages, partners, children, and the emotional architecture of the household.

This is not moral panic.
This is a public health conversation, twenty minutes before the smoke alarm goes off.