web
counter
 

Pajiba Dirty Talk: See, I Told You You're Normal

By Dr. Pisaster | Posted Under Pajiba Dirty Talk | Comments (29)



paraphilias_01.jpg

I firmly believe that most people have at least a little kink, and that non-church approved sexual practices are pretty common. I also believe that it’d be nice if we as a society acknowledged that all kind of things actually fall under the definition otf “normal,” when it comes to sex, since many people wrongly believe there is something wrong or strange about what they desire. I don’t believe that you can quantify the degree to which humans are kinky by analyzing their internet searches, but surveys of actual humans? Now we’re getting somewhere. This month’s Journal of Sexual Medicine republished a 2009 article on the prevalence of paraphilias (broadly defined in this study as a range of sexual desires not generally thought of as standard) in a population of German men. While it’s unfortunate that the study is limited to men (paraphilias are generally thought to not affect women, probably because women are strongly encouraged not to talk about their sexual desires, especially if they are considered weird), it’s still interesting to see just how many of the research subjects were willing to admit to various sexual fantasies and practices.

367 volunteers from an earlier study on Berlin males answered computer and pencil-and-paper surveys about their sexual desires and practices, as well as their sexual health. The subjects ranged in age from 40 to 79. The majority (90,2%) identified as straight, but 2.2% and 7.6% identified as gay or bisexual, respectively. Paraphilia’s looked at in this study included: Transvestic fetish (i.e. a fetish for cross-dressing, not a fetish for cross-dressers), fetishes for non-living objects such as shoes, voyeurism, exhibitionism, frotteurism (the practice of rubbing one’s genitals on an non-consenting stranger, not the same thing as frottage, which, incidentally, my brain insists on reading as a type of cheese for some reason), masochism, sadism, and pedophilia. (Some of these things are not like the other ones! Some of these things do not belong!)

To be fair, the current version of the DSM (the psychiatric bible) does consider paraphilias to be mental conditions, but only if certain criteria are met. Those criteria being: that the desire causes clinically significant distress for the patient or creates intense social and interpersonal problems or that the person has acted out their fantasies with non-consenting people. This seems mostly reasonable to me. Some people will unfortunately take otherwise normal behaviors to extremes (see: animal hoarders), but that doesn’t mean that everyone who exhibits a behavior is sick. I think that some people may feel distress over paraphilias not because they have become obsessive or compulsive about them, but because society or individuals in their lives make them feel ashamed of their desires, in which case the root of the problem isn’t the desire itself and hopefully psychiatrists and psychologists take that into account when dealing with actual patients. And of course anything that involves using other people’s bodies for your own sexual pleasure without their consent is a significant issue. Older criteria define any acted upon paraphilia to be a sign of disorder, but based on the results of this study, that would mean that most Berlin men are living with a sexual psychiatric disorder. Onto the results!

A total of 62% of all the men surveyed identified with at least one paraphila. Only 1.7% of those reported that their desires had caused them distress. The men were most likely to fantasize (58.6%) and masturbate (47.7%) to their desires, but a pretty substantial number (44.4%) had acted on them. Voyeurism (38.7%) and fetishism (35.7%) were the most commonly reported paraphilias. Sadism and masochism were the next most common (24.8% and 18.5%). Frotteurism was somewhat disturbingly common (15%), as was pedophilia (10.4%), and the least common were transvestitism (7.4%) and exhibitionism (4.1%). Of those paraphilias that involved underage or non-consenting partners, 6.5% admitted to engaging in frotteurism in reality (as opposed to just fantasy), and 3.8% admitted to acts of pedophilia. Fetishism, sadism, and masochism were the most commonly practiced in real life. Pedophilia and transvestitism were the most likely to cause distress, although the numbers of respondents who reported distress were so low (0-2 per fetish) that the numbers are uninterpretable. Most of the respondents described their paraphilias as intensely arousing, and most did not consider their paraphilias a problem (not such a good thing when you include the pedophiles and frotteurs). Men with paraphilias were slightly more likely to be single (odds ratio 2.6) and to masturbate at least once a week (odds 4.4). Their rates of general life satisfaction and sex life satisfaction were the same as for men who did not report paraphilias.

The subjects of this study were, of course, volunteers, so the results might be skewed slightly by the fact that it’s based on the responses of men who felt comfortable talking about their sex lives and who therefore have pretty liberal attitudes toward sex. On the other hand, it is likely that some downplayed their paraphilias out of shame. The fact that such a large number admitted to these desires (and in many cases, actions), seems to me to be a strong indicator that paraphilias are in fact very, very common and totally normal. I wish that a similar study had been conducted on women, but the results of such a study would likely be even more skewed by cultural factors, since society polices women’s sexual desires much more fervently. The fact that the psychiatric community lumps things like sado-masochism and exhibitionism with pedophilia is somewhat disturbing, but the definitions of paraphilia-as-mental-disorder have changed substantially over the years and this conflation is largely a relic of more prudish times. A behavior or desire can’t be abnormal if most of the population engages in it, and this study demonstrates that paraphilias are in no way abnormal.

Dr. Pisaster has a doctorate in biophysics, not actually anything sexy. She does however enjoy having sex, reading about sex, and talking about sex. Especially when she’s had a little whiskey.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Pajiba After Dark 5/18/11 | In Defense of Tracy Flick









Comments

I confess to several paraphilias.

Thank you. Wanted to get that off my chest.

Posted by: The Wanderer at May 18, 2011 7:08 PM

So a lack of paraphilias actually might make someone an outlier? Or perhaps paraphilias are so common that being paraphilia-averse could be a paraphilia itself.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at May 18, 2011 7:19 PM

hey, i'm normal!

Posted by: splinter at May 18, 2011 7:25 PM

As a listener of the Savage Love podcast, I believe these numbers are low for the more mundane interests. My perspective may be skewed, I admit.

Posted by: The_wakeful at May 18, 2011 7:58 PM

I'm astounded that women aren't thought to have paraphilias. Jesus. Maybe they just haven't bothered to ask. Just off the top of my head, a list of paraphilias among my female friends:

Accents. My best friend's thing for accents and voices is so major, she doesn't get turned on by men with her own accent. Her latest favorite is Yorkshire, discovered after she met a bloke from Yorkshire at a meeting and HAD to go to the restaurant bathroom and masturbate within 15 minutes of talking to him because it got her so hot she couldn't concentrate. Her other favorites include New Zealand and Paul Robeson.

Exhibitionism. My friend's desire to be caught caused a problem in the house we shared. You can imagine. We had to threaten her with eviction if she kept setting up situations in which she knew she'd be walked in on going for it with her boyfriend. There's only so many times you'll put up with being a pawn in someone else's orgasms.

A lover's clothing. My friend is turned on by clothes that belong to current or former lovers, especially shirts of soft material that smell like the man in question. She has, like 20 unwashed guys shirts that she wears and masturbates in. I can't see her in one of them without unwillingly knowing that she'll be masturbating because of it when she gets home. It's so disconcerting over coffee.

I could go on.

Posted by: rebecca h. at May 18, 2011 8:08 PM

I'm normal, and so is my wife!

Posted by: frank_247 at May 18, 2011 8:19 PM

But seriously, this article expresses how wide ranging human sexuality actually is.
Obviously there are things that will forever be taboo, paedophilia, necrophilia, and should never become accepted.

But there are things classed as paraphilia that are more of the norm now than they were 30, 40, 50 years ago.
Our TV and Film show far more scenes of S&M than before (as an example) and it isn't always in a negative way.

At the end of the day, if what you and your partner do together, if it is consensual, and doesn't scare the animals, then Go For It!

Posted by: frank_247 at May 18, 2011 8:28 PM

As long as everyone is a consenting adult, I don't have a problem with it, whatever it is. That doesn't mean I want to hear all about it, though.

The truth is, most people's "fetishes" (or whatever we're calling them) are boring. Or so weird that they're not boring, but are really alarming or disturbing. Either way, feel free not to share them with me in daily conversation, just like you can feel free not to describe how sick your kid was last night, for example. Just a note to people in general. If the subject of a conversation is sex, sure, I guess go ahead and share. But don't spring that shit on somebody out of thin air, thinking they'll appreciate hearing all about your sexual interest in horsehead bookends or people dressed as elves or whatever. Just keep it to yourself unless someone asks. Sharing judiciously is one thing, sharing indiscriminately is just attention whoring. Like so many "expressions" these days.

Posted by: Slash at May 18, 2011 9:04 PM

Okay. So I know this is a bit tangential, but I'm so fucking pissed about this that I nearly threw my computer out the window in a blind rage. Since pedophilia was mentioned in this piece and in the context of a scientific paper, I have to ask about this 5 year "study" conducted by the Catholic church. One the "conclusions" that these motherfuckers reached was that the abuse scandal has little to do with pedophilia - which they define as abuse of anyone 10 and younger. By this definition, only 22% of the cases fall into that category. However, the APA defines pedophilia as acts committed on those 14 and younger (which puts the percentage a 60). Does anyone think these findings are credible? And what is the definition?

Also, can we just kill all of them?

Posted by: bibliophile at May 18, 2011 11:11 PM

You're pissed because a study used a slightly different criteria in age? Get some perspective. Ephebophilia is the attraction to adolescents and paedophilia is the attraction to children.

Also kill all of who? The Jews? Blacks? Oh, Catholics, yeah, that's cool.

Posted by: Ender at May 19, 2011 4:44 AM

Can someone confirm this?

Posted by: kimkardashianporno.org at May 19, 2011 6:36 AM

Well done, you sneaky Spambot sonofabitch! I actually went and double checked my info, before realising you weren't a human being.

All to the good though. I had my terminology slightly wrong. Ephebophilia is the attraction to late adolescents. Hebephilia is the attraction to early adolescents.

Posted by: Ender at May 19, 2011 8:45 AM

We are talking about Germans here...

Posted by: MRod at May 19, 2011 9:51 AM

I'm pissed because the church is not taking any responsibility for the vile behavior of it's clergy. Blaming the 60's? Really? Divorce? Give me a fucking break. These people are deviants that prey on children in the worst possible way and there was a whole culture in the church's hierarchy that protected them. That's STILL protecting them. Pedophiles don't need to be protected, children do. Pedophiles need to be taken out to the desert and be beaten to death with a claw hammer. They are beasts and should just be destroyed.

Posted by: bibliophile at May 19, 2011 10:23 AM

If you're pissed about them not taking responsibility then don't transfer that anger to things that are not objectively incorrect.

Posted by: Ender at May 19, 2011 10:32 AM

What???

Posted by: bibliophile at May 19, 2011 11:12 AM

"I'm pissed because the church is not taking any responsibility for the vile behavior of it's clergy." = not stupid

"I'm pissed because the church is using different criteria to differentiate between paedophilia and hebephilia than a random American organisation" = stupid

Posted by: Ender at May 19, 2011 11:25 AM

Not what I said, but whatever. Take it however you like. I'm done arguing with a stump.

Posted by: bibliophile at May 19, 2011 11:28 AM

p.s. I haven't a clue if this is true, but a new report shows that the predation was not associated with paedophilia, celibacy or homosexuality.

The final one is obvious, but if the first is true then your anger is completely misdirected.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201105/the-new-john-jay-report-clergy-abuse-in-the-catholic-church

http://www.usccb.org/ocyp.In

Posted by: Ender at May 19, 2011 11:39 AM

bibliophile "I'm so fucking pissed about this ... I have to ask about this 5 year "study" conducted by the Catholic church. One the "conclusions" that these motherfuckers reached was that the abuse scandal has little to do with pedophilia - which they define as abuse of anyone 10 and younger. By this definition, only 22% of the cases fall into that category. However, the APA defines pedophilia as acts committed on those 14 and younger"

I'm fucking pissed... at this study... because of their definitions... which are different from the APA's

Yep, sounds like I had what you said pegged perfectly.

"I'm pissed because the church is using different criteria to differentiate between paedophilia and hebephilia than a random American organisation"

And it's still stupid.

Posted by: Ender at May 19, 2011 11:42 AM

damnit. I was hoping to avoid writing about that study....
Also, PLAY NICE PEOPLE

Posted by: dr. pisaster at May 19, 2011 12:56 PM

My bad. I'd be interested to read your analysis of it though, I haven't read it beyond that link. Who did it? Can we even trust their figures let alone their analysis and conclusions? And if we can, did the analyse it right, are their conclusions supported by the evidence? No pressure though, I hope some science site or other will pick it up soon.

I'll play nice when people don't suggest killing all of us or possibly just all our clergy. Would a comment similar to bibliophile's but directed at women be acceptible? I think I've been fairly restrained.

Posted by: Ender at May 19, 2011 3:37 PM

"...and as he lay astride the magnificently-toned and sculptured hardness of his luvvah Ender's heaving and sweat-drenched pubis, Pendarvis kissed him chastely on his furrowed temple, half-smiling, as he ever-so-softly whispered: 'Dahhling, if you ever think you are "fairly restrained," you musn't dare say it aloud- my paraphelia never plays fairly!'

And with their newfound liberation from long-suppressed desires, the heady aroma of their lingering sensuality released hearty and robust laughter whilst losing themselves in frotteuristic fantasy play..."

next week's installment: bibliophile's claw hammer makes a lasting impression on Wilson, the grizzled but kindly old neighborhood pedophile.

Posted by: Name Witheld (against its will) at May 19, 2011 9:03 PM

Um... yeah. Bitter much?

That is rather irritating though, so 'bibliophile "I love paedophiles" jones' why not admit you posted that?

Posted by: Ender at May 20, 2011 3:07 AM

Also, yo, Overlords, did Big Todd not get banned for writing sexual things about Mrs Julien? I'm sure you have "Name Witheld (against its will)"'s ip. Or would this be an example of the anti-male sexism I've heard so much about and argued doesn't exist?

Posted by: Ender at May 20, 2011 3:09 AM

If you want to explore things, that's not the issue I take, the issue I take is when people get self righteous about their sexual kinks, and when they stop enjoying other types of sex at the expense of said kinks.

Plus, people have every right to be made fun of for their kinks. Do we really have to give respect and dignity to these people when it's their choice to engage in these acts? Are sadomasochists and fetishists really a cause that actually matters?

Posted by: Devil Child at May 20, 2011 3:22 AM

"Do we really have to give respect and dignity to [People]"

Yes. Each and every one.

when it's their choice to engage in these acts? Are sadomasochists and fetishists really a cause that actually matters?

It's gay people's choice to engage in their acts, and 'these people' have no choice in what they find erotic, so you've argued yourself into a corner, either you extend your bigotry and desire to disrespect to gay people and admit you're a Homophobe, or you drop this entire line of reasoning and stop treating 'these people' any worse than any other person with a certain sexual orientation.

Posted by: Ender at May 20, 2011 4:38 AM

"This month’s Journal of Sexual Medicine republished a 2009 article on the prevalence of paraphilias (broadly defined in this study as a range of sexual desires not generally thought of as standard) in a population of German men."

German men.

Posted by: MRod at May 20, 2011 9:57 AM

This was my experience with bibliophile. Please excuse my spelling, I'm not so old.

""...and as he lay astride the youthfully-toned and sculptured hardness of his father Bibliophile's heaving and sweat-drenched pubis, the youngin' kissed him chastely on his furrowed temple, half-smiling, as he ever-so-softly whispered: 'Dahhling, if you ever think you are "against this kind of love," you musn't dare say it aloud- my paraphelia never plays fairly!'

And with their newfound liberation from long-suppressed desires, the heady aroma of their lingering sensuality released hearty and robust laughter whilst losing themselves in adult-youth fantasy play..."

Turnabout's fair play.

Posted by: Name Witheld (against its will) at May 20, 2011 7:39 PM