Both: What do you think causes people to develop sexual paraphilias?

submitted by worried19 from self.GCdebatesQT

What do you think causes paraphilias like autogynephilia and various other kinks and fetishes like sadism and masochism? Can people be born with them, or do they develop due to something in the environment?

Per Wikipedia:

The causes of paraphilias in people are unclear, but some research points to a possible prenatal neurodevelopmental correlation. A 2008 study analyzing the sexual fantasies of 200 heterosexual men by using the Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire exam determined that males with a pronounced degree of fetish interest had a greater number of older brothers, a high 2D:4D digit ratio (which would indicate excessive prenatal estrogen exposure), and an elevated probability of being left-handed, suggesting that disturbed hemispheric brain lateralization may play a role in deviant attractions.

Behavioral explanations propose that paraphilias are conditioned early in life, during an experience that pairs the paraphilic stimulus with intense sexual arousal. Susan Nolen-Hoeksema suggests that, once established, masturbatory fantasies about the stimulus reinforce and broaden the paraphilic arousal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

It's also very clear that there is a strong sex disparity in paraphilias. Is there a particular reason that males are more prone to developing them? Could this have something to do with male biology? What would cause women to develop them so much more infrequently?

What are your thoughts?

all 88 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think (best-guessing) that we'll find some interplay of testosterone, cognitive development, and early environmental influence or trauma (or both). I say testosterone because with a 20:1 ratio of male-to-female paraphilia occurrence, it seems like a pretty good starting point.

[–]worried19[S] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My gut feeling says that it's environmental. I don't believe children can be born with paraphilias, but rather that life experiences lead them to develop them. I think it is possible that something in biology may make certain people more susceptible than others. Autogynephilia may develop, for example, when a male child is exposed to the idea that femininity in men is shameful and femininity in women is overtly sexualized, but there might be something in their brain chemistry that causes them to go down that road rather than the more common one that most men go down.

As for the sex disparity, I imagine testosterone has something to do with it. It would be interesting to find out if trans men find themselves suddenly developing paraphilias. Does anyone know of any research in that department? I know there is anecdotal evidence of trans men reporting much higher sex drives, including a change in sexual orientation.

[–]anxietyaccount8 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

elevated probability of being left-handed, suggesting that disturbed hemispheric brain lateralization

Wait, am I misunderstanding or does it call left-handed people disturbed?

OP, to answer your question there can be many reasons why people develop paraphilias, I think a lot of it is environmental. I also agree that men are more likely to have them, it could be linked to testosterone.

In the cases where somebody develops one before puberty, it seems that there must be a genetic component.

At the same time, don't trust these kinds of studies 100%. I have a digit ratio correlated with being a lesbian, yet am very much not one.

[–]worried19[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wait, am I misunderstanding or does it call left-handed people disturbed?

I think it's more that there's a disturbance in usual development that causes left-handedness. Incidentally, those exact same factors (men having more older brothers, being left-handed, and having that digit ratio) are also correlated with homosexuality. So I think there must be something going on that's biological. If there's a "disturbance" in prenatal development, you wind up with a more uncommon outcome, even if said "deviance" is completely benign.

In the cases where somebody develops one before puberty, it seems that there must be a genetic component.

Or a traumatic one. Children sadly can and do experience trauma before puberty. And even if they're not physically or sexually abused, they can also be exposed to unhealthy social conditioning, such as a little boy repeatedly being shamed for wanting to explore femininity.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

At the same time, don't trust these kinds of studies 100%. I have a digit ratio correlated with being a lesbian, yet am very much not one.

But you do reject a lot of mainstream social roles as wrong for you.

[–]anxietyaccount8 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Couldn't you say that about anyone here though? It is niche to be a radical feminist or someone very invested in queer theory.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Couldn't you say that about anyone here though?

Well yes. But these kinds of forums have gnc people. Gnc people are likely to have minority digit ratios, in theory.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

The male libido + being white & middle-class.

[–]worried19[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Do men of color and lower class men have fewer instances of paraphilias? It would be interesting to see some research in this area.

Anecdotally, I don't believe I have ever seen an AGP black trans woman in the media. They all seem to be the HSTS type.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't believe I have ever seen an AGP black trans woman in the media. They all seem to be the HSTS type.

Quite a few high profile black male trans persons in the media strike me as definitely both HSTS and AGP: Munroe Bergdorf, Cece Telfer, Andraya Yearwood, Terry Miller, just to name a few. But none of these are "lower class."

Being AGP goes hand in hand with high levels of narcissism and is an expression of male narcissism.

AGP and HSTS never have been mutually exclusive. There have always been homosexual transvestites, transsexuals and and "transgender" males who are AGP. There's nothing about being a gay male that precludes being AGP. AGP is an expression of male sexual desire, male narcissism, male fantasy, male self-involvement. Anyone male can be AGP.

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Blanchard once mentioned that there is no evidence of autogynaephiles in non-Western cultures. Typically, differences between Western cultures & other cultures are class-based. Those same differences can typically be seen within Western cultures between the working classes & the middle & upper classes. The white part isn't a catalyst in any way, I don't think, it's just that white people tend to be thoroughly middle-class (even their grandparents were middle-class).

I think it's more than just a coincidence that almost all the famous white male trans people are non-homosexual transsexuals (maybe NikkieTutorials is a HSTS?) while none of the famous black ones are.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Blanchard once mentioned that there is no evidence of autogynaephiles in non-Western cultures.

Did he look?

Typically, differences between Western cultures & other cultures are class-based.

Huh?

white people tend to be thoroughly middle-class (even their grandparents were middle-class).

WTF? So there's no & never has been any white working class or "poor white trash" people anywhere in the world?

[–]SnowAssMan 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

I think I'd trust Blanchard to know whether it exists in other cultures. As the guy who coined it, he'd have motivation to find it, or be aware of someone else finding having found it.

Western cultures are typically individualist & have a low power distance compared to non-Western cultures which tend to be collectivist with a high power distance. It's based on class, because Mexico & Russia culturally share more in common than they do with countries closer to them with people more genetically similar to them.

What I said: white people tend to be thoroughly middle-class (even their grandparents were middle-class).

What you said: So there's no & never has been any white working class or "poor white trash" people anywhere in the world?

Tend ≠ exceptions don't exist.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I think I'd trust Blanchard to know whether it exists in other cultures. As the guy who coined it, he'd have motivation to find it, or be aware of someone else finding having found it.

Knowing quite a bit about the many blind spots & presumptions of white Western men in academia over time, I think you are very naive to be so trusting.

I am willing to give credence that AGP doesn't exist outside the West. Since I see AGP as an expression of sexualized male narcissism, it makes sense to me that it would be tied to Western individualism. Moreover, since AGP involves access to FL looking glasses & to the domestic spaces & lifestyles that afford males with enough personal privacy & time to use looking glass as masturbatory aids as AGPs do, I suspect this is a paraphilia that only develops in situations of relative material comfort and differentiated rooms in dwellings. Still, I would not assume that Blanchard ever probed deeply about other cultures. After all, in his own culture & the culture where his male patients came from, it never once occurred to him over many decades to consider how the male behaviors he green-lighted would affect women & children.

I questioned your contention that

white people tend to be thoroughly middle-class (even their grandparents were middle-class).

And now you come back saying that

Western cultures are typically individualist & have a low power distance compared to non-Western cultures which tend to be collectivist with a high power distance. Mexico & Russia culturally share more in common than they do with countries closer to them with people more genetically similar to them.

Which has me scratching my head.

Western cultures are all white & middle class? Individualistic = middle class?

How does this connect to Mexico & Russia? Are you saying they are white & middle class - or the opposite? How are Russia & Mexico more similar to one another than to countries closer to them? Mexico is a country with a large indigenous population of "brown" people colonized by white Europeans from Spain that still has a powerful white elite class. Last I looked, Russia had a very different kind of history and demographics. Is it me, or aren't people from Russia and most the rest of the USSR largely "white"? It's been many years, but I've been to Mexico & to Russia and I dunno what you are talking about.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Well, I also did quite a bit of searching myself. I made a post exploring whether "transbians exist outside the West". I found that all "trans people" outside the West weren't trans people at all, but homosexuals. That post alone I think debunks the idea that trans people are internally the opposite sex.

There are 6 dimensions of culture. Each dimension has a scale with two opposing poles. Generally, Western/middle-class cultures conform to one side of all the poles vs. working-class cultures that generally conform to the other side of the poles.

Mexicans & Russian are have only class in common, which is why their cultures are more similar to one another than they are to the US or Europe, respectively. Russia was a country of illiterate peasants during WW1, which is why their revolution was so successful. The Soviet Union was a working-class dictatorship. The marketisation of Russia is fairly recent (about 30 years ago). It's these working-class roots that show through in their culture.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I found that all "trans people" outside the West weren't trans people at all, but homosexuals.

Just to be clear, you know that with very rare exceptions, they were/are all male homosexuals too.

Mexicans & Russian are have only class in common, which is why their cultures are more similar to one another than they are to the US or Europe, respectively.

I don't know what you mean when you say these countries "have only class in common." Can you explain?

Russia was a country of illiterate peasants during WW1, which is why their revolution was so successful. The Soviet Union was a working-class dictatorship. The marketisation of Russia is fairly recent (about 30 years ago). It's these working-class roots that show through in their culture.

The fact that a huge swathe of the population of Russia consisted of illiterate peasants doesn't mean Russia was entirely made up of such at the time of the revolution or before. Russia was a monarchy with a very wealthy and longstanding aristocracy & upper class as well as a mercantile class. The tsar was the richest man in the world. Lots of people in Russia were literate and learned. Many were well-educated and highly accomplished.

Changes in class dynamics in Russia began occurring due to government reforms instituted in the 19th century, particularly when serfdom was abolished in 1861. But there was quite a wealthy, educated, highly sophisticated upper crust in Russia for centuries. Read or watch some Tolstoy, or some material about him. The movie about his last days is good, and I enjoyed the version of Anna Karenina with Kiera Knightley. There's also Pasternak's Dr Zhivago.

The people behind the revolutions that finally resulted in the Bolsehvik revolution in October 1917 were educated middle-class Russians. Like this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Kerensky

There are 6 dimensions of culture. Each dimension has a scale with two opposing poles. Generally, Western/middle-class cultures conform to one side of all the poles vs. working-class cultures that generally conform to the other side of the poles.

Says who? Sounds like simplistic, sophomoric bollocks to me. Also, what does it have to do with what we are discussing?

BTW, I hope you know that the terms "working class" and "peasant class" were/are not synonymous.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Wow, is that all you ever do is dwell on exceptions? The working-class population of Russia in 1917 was over 80% of the population! But you're here to inform me that they haven't got a working-class culture, because (drumroll) the monarchy weren't working-class!?? Absolutely redonkulous!

And yes, peasant-class & working-class are synonymous in this case. There are only two classes, culturally: the working-classes & the middle/upper-classes. Russia didn't just assassinate the Tsar, it went out of its way to torture to death &/or work to death the bourgeoisie, further explaining why their culture is so working-class today.

And no, watching the movie Nicholas and Alexandra is not going to give me great insight into the Russian population's class or culture.

Says who? Sounds like simplistic, sophomoric bollocks to me. Also, what does it have to do with what we are discussing?

Any & every trend or pattern sounds like rubbish to you, because as long as 100% of something isn't occurring 100% of the time to a degree of 100%, it supposedly doesn't exist. The reason class is relevant, is for the sae reason that sex is: both are determinants of the presence of paraphilia.

Just to be clear, you know that with very rare exceptions, they were/are all male homosexuals too.

You mean that they are male? Yes.

I don't know what you mean when you say these countries "have only class in common." Can you explain?

Mexico & Russia are on different continents, have different languages, different ethnicities etc. etc. they haven't got anything in common except the class of their populations, which explains the similarities in their cultures (referring to Hofstede's 6 dimensions, not superficial stuff like food & clothing)

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You didn't originally say that

The working-class population of Russia in 1917 was over 80% of the population!

On the contrary, you said

Russia was a country of illiterate peasants during WW1, which is why their revolution was so successful.

Those are two entirely different claims.

I pointed out Russia at the time of WW1 was a monarchy & oligarchy with an aristocracy & mercantile class, and that the revolutionaries who overthrew the government in the early 20th century were literate & highly educated, middle class persons like Kerensky. Whereas you claimed that the whole country at the time were illiterate peasants.

You said earlier that

Mexicans & Russian are have only class in common, which is why their cultures are more similar to one another than they are to the US or Europe, respectively.

I asked what you meant by "have only class in common." I asked you to explain. Which you still haven't. And now you come back with this:

Mexico & Russia are on different continents, have different languages, different ethnicities etc. etc. they haven't got anything in common except the class of their populations, which explains the similarities in their cultures

To which I again say: huh and WTF?

And yes, peasant-class & working-class are synonymous in this case. There are only two classes, culturally: the working-classes & the middle/upper-classes. Russia didn't just assassinate the Tsar, it went out of its way to torture to death &/or work to death the bourgeoisie, further explaining why their culture is so working-class today.

No, in practical & theoretical terms, the peasant class is different to the working class. One was/is agrarian, the other industrial.

I don't understand the claims you are making about the "bourgeoisie" in the Soviet system.

Your bombastic writing style makes figuring out your points unduly difficult.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Not really, working class and peasants weren't synonyms. Peasnats had much less rights and there were two types of peasants, one was basically slaves, as they were not able to marry or move without permission of the landlord they were working for. Other part of peasants were more close to working class, and mostly were living in cities, but they still were lacking a lot of rights. I believe there only around 3-5% of working class and 80-85% of peasants during that time and rest were aristocracy, military or merchants.

For some reason those peasants in villages who had absolutely no rights are not called slaves, even thought they basically were them.

Later it started slowly to change and peasants were given their own pieces of land, which still was owned by landlord, but at least they had almost all they grown there for themselves now.

which is why their revolution was so successful.

That is not so much true as well, because revolution was aimed for bad workers.

In villages peasants who were good working and were able to have good harvests were called Kulak's, and they were attacked by people who were making revolution. In most cases those who came to rule were peasants who were not able to work properly. Later Kulak's were called any peasant who was not giving their last grain to new governemnt.

Later new wave of good working peasants appeared, but during Stalin they were destroyed completely and often put in prison or murdered. So only bad working peasants left who were working "because it needed" and not because they liked to work or know how to work. That led to huge drops in harvesting, as most people who knew what to do were in prison or murdered.

[–]worried19[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Blanchard once mentioned that there is no evidence of autogynaephiles in non-Western cultures.

That certainly tracks with what we know of so-called "third sexes" around the world. They seem to all be either gender nonconforming male homosexuals or eunuchs. Have there ever been historical instances of them having sex with women?

I think it's more than just a coincidence that almost all the famous white male trans people are non-homosexual transsexuals (maybe NikkieTutorials is a HSTS?) while none of the famous black ones are.

Nikkie is HSTS, I'm sure. I don't think we can even say about Jazz Jennings since whatever that child's natural sexuality would have been was destroyed by doctors.

[–]SnowAssMan 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Have there ever been historical instances of them having sex with women

Not that I know of. In the past "two spirit" were known as 'berdache', which is the word for: passive homosexual male, catamite/bardash. We just changed the name, thereby erasing gay people. The only way to marry someone of the same sex in these cultures is to take on the gender role of the opposite sex. It's only been possible in nations with very large populations for gay people to be able to find other gay people to be with.

[–]ZveroboyAlinaIs clownfish a clown or a fish? 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People of lower class has less time on such stuff. They just mentioned less.

I don't believe I have ever seen an AGP black trans woman in the media.

Remove "trans" from the equasion and everything will start making sense from that point on. It does not mean they don't exist, it means they just not focused and not given opportunities to speak (and they are often more poor, so have less time for post-modernism and more based in reality).

So what we have:

  • In media and in power mostly shown middle/high-class white transwomen. Transmen are rarely mentioned, and if mentioned it is mostly when speaking about periods or pregnancy. Black transwomen are mentioned really rarely and mostly when speaking about sports, especially running. I only saw mentions of black transmen only once, and even then it was accidental. Asian transmen and transwomen are forgotten completely.

If we replace "gender identity" with "sex", we will have picture which corresponds to current reality about society in general:

  • In media and in power mostly shown middle/high-class white men. Women are rarely mentioned, and if mentioned it is often when speaking about periods or pregnancy. Black men are mentioned rarely and mostly when speaking about sports, especially running. Black women you can count on one hand. Asians are often forgotten.

Makes sense now?

And it is same everywhere, if you replace "gender identity" with "birth sex" - it will make perfect sense and will be same as for general population.

21 transgender politicians were elected in 2020 in USA? 20 of them are transwomen, 1 is transman, 1 is black. Same tendency as in politics if take according to sexes - most are white men, sometimes black men and sometimes women.

And same with everything.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Paraphilias seem like they're somehow linked to testosterone (or maybe just males?) and to the mechanisms behind addiction. It seems like many if not most of them develop around puberty, which makes sense since that's when a person's sexuality is burgeoning. If AGP is indicative, then the compulsion must be met or fulfilled in order to feel 'good', or get the satisfaction the person needs.

What makes me wonder about the addiction aspect even more is the relatively newly described phenomenon of 'gender euphoria' that is talked about in trans circles in relation to knowing whether one is trans or not. The way I've seen it described is very much akin to experiencing an orgasm or getting a hit of a drug. I don't know if it's really the case that AGP is something that gets stronger for a person the more it's reinforced for them, but I wouldn't be surprised if that really is the case.

ETA: Something else I see talked about in relation to AGP specifically is erotic target location error (ETLE), like the object of desire not being totally outside the self (or something like that). I've only seen that talked about with AGP, but I wonder if it's not unique just to AGP but more common with other paraphilias in general.

[–]worried19[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Erotic target location error is an interesting hypothesis. It sounds plausible.

What makes me wonder about the addiction aspect even more is the relatively newly described phenomenon of 'gender euphoria' that is talked about in trans circles in relation to knowing whether one is trans or not.

Huh, I never thought of that as a possibility. I wonder if it's more like the euphoria a person feels after joining a religion, like becoming a born again Christian. They get on a spiritual high, they have a community of people showering them with love and approval, lots of endorphins, etc. I think it's more an emotional reaction than a physical addiction. "I once was lost, but now I'm found. Was blind but now I see." Very similar to coming out as your "true self" as a trans person.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wonder if it's more like the euphoria a person feels after joining a religion, like becoming a born again Christian. They get on a spiritual high, they have a community of people showering them with love and approval, lots of endorphins, etc.

That's a super interesting thought, I bet you're right. For at least some people, that religious/cult-like 'high' does seem to be a thing that I've seen in trans communities, particularly throughout this gender ideology/TRA era. I definitely think there's some kind of drug-like high that some people get from this, and transitioning in a manner that seems to escalate (like, needing more things or procedures in order to transition or alleviate dysphoria). The physiological processes, habituation and addiction seem like really important things to study in order to maybe understand that stuff better. Gender euphoria is such an interesting thing I have trouble understanding.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (24 children)

checks hand ratio

Good question. To me the flat universal occurrence of the phenomena implies a natural cause. You can look at sexuality in Roman history and see sexual practices we recognise today but interpreted in different ways. There is an interaction between the environment and biology. Things that are universally found are highly likely to be natural even if they are dealt with differently.

Though the essentialist biological differences have to come down to few reasons rather than lots of reasons. That means lots of different apparent forms are triggered by a few elements rather than all having individual natural triggers. For instance linking the higher male numbers to a higher sex drive and/or a higher level of innate aggression.

In other words, sex drive fully accounted for the sex difference in paraphilic interests.

Paraphilic Interests: An Examination of Sex Differences in a Nonclinical Sample

Maybe.

Another aspect of the gender variation I wonder about is the active and passive element.

Sexual arousal by dominance and submission in relation to increased reproductive success in the general population

Results: Sexually dominant men aged 35-44 years had more biological male children. Both the sexually dominant men aged 35-44 years and sexually submissive women aged 35-44 years perceived themselves as being more attractive.

Conclusion: We suggest that sexual arousal by dominance is likely to be the means by which the mating strategy is accomplished.

Don't blame me for what this report says. I'm just looking things up.

I'm generally looking at popular erotic culture. Yes I agree that is culturally dependent. Again don't blame me for what is popular erotic work with women.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-Kindle-Store-Erotic-Fiction/zgbs/digital-text/362277031

I think it contains what are often classed as paraphilias. I often think the clinical paraphilias are extreme versions of preferences found in common sexual activity. It isn't a binary thing. Saying but they shouldn't like it is something else.

[–]anxietyaccount8 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

You can look at sexuality in Roman history and see sexual practices we recognise today but interpreted in different ways.

The way that sexuality in ancient Rome was perceived is honestly not that different to how many men see it today in 2021. They still may think that giving pleasure to a woman is demeaning, and that being penetrated makes you "gayer" than the person doing the penetrating. I don't understand why people are so fascinated by sexuality in Ancient Rome/Greece. It's just sexist to me.

I'm generally looking at popular erotic culture. Yes I agree that is culturally dependent. Again don't blame me for what is popular erotic work with women.

See, I can only speak for my own self, but as a radfem and a straight woman, my own taste actually changed. All women are pretty much taught that men who are super dominant, rich, etc, are the most attractive. A lot of portrayals of these kinds of men are actually very unrealistic, for example books will show a man being sadistic and a literal rapist, but at the same time he will eventually love the woman protagonist. Sadistic men in real life don't tend to be so "perfect", obviously.

I guarantee you, the reason so many women like this sort of thing is simply because of societal influence.

Both the sexually dominant men aged 35-44 years and sexually submissive women aged 35-44 years perceived themselves as being more attractive.

This is just... isn't it SO obvious as to why that would be true?

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The way that sexuality in ancient Rome was perceived is honestly not that different to how many men see it today in 2021.

Which is why I have coined the term Caliguland for today's depraved, dick-centered culture. It's like today's world is made to order for the perverted proclivities of the sick misogynistic fuck Caligula. Or it's his wet dream.

They still may think that giving pleasure to a woman is demeaning, and that being penetrated makes you "gayer" than the person doing the penetrating. I don't understand why people are so fascinated by sexuality in Ancient Rome/Greece. It's just sexist to me.

I agree.

[–]worried19[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is just... isn't it SO obvious as to why that would be true?

You'd think, and also them having more children. Seems obvious to me controlling men also control their female partners in terms of the number of children who are born. There are plenty of instances of abusive men sabotaging birth control.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

See, I can only speak for my own self, but as a radfem and a straight woman, my own taste actually changed.

When you say you changed? What changed?

I guarantee you, the reason so many women like this sort of thing is simply because of societal influence.

That's the big question to me.

[–]anxietyaccount8 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

When you say you changed? What changed?

Mainly that I realized traits such as being compassionate were infinitely more important to making a good or attractive man, than what I was taught. People always said "a REAL man has to always take charge and be the perfect masculine example". But many men who are so hung up on their masculinity are misogynistic. So it changed my mind.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

That doesn't sound that radical though.

[–]anxietyaccount8 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Well in my perception it was radical because I held a more conservative viewpoint before.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-Kindle-Store-Erotic-Fiction/zgbs/digital-text/362277031

Amazon US list for comparison: https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Kindle-Store-Erotica/zgbs/digital-text/157057011/?tf=1

Note the slight uptick in urban fantasy, sci-fi/fantasy, and m/m features and the comparative downlisting of the Grey series. Just to say there's likely to be variation by reader population, location, and size.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (10 children)

I mean slight variations but your list still has plenty of kink tropes. But I am interested in the gender stereotypes in these.

What are your thoughts on these best sellers?

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

What are your thoughts on these best sellers?

They're the crisps of modern evocative lit, like The Pearl and penny dreadfuls. And they're probably popular to the degree that they're transgressive. (Who among us wants to consort with actual vampires? To be de Sade's Justine?)

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (8 children)

I think I met vampire women with sharpened incisors.

You think their popular because their transgressive? But a lot of the characters aren't transgressive, their actually traditional.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

But a lot of the characters aren't transgressive, their actually traditional.

Of course. That sets up a contrast, which you need to build tension in any story.

Yes, I think they're popular because they're transgressive. Since novels became popular in the 17th/18th century, there've been expanding niches for stories that evoke dread (gothic, horror), suspense (thriller), and arousal (erotica). The repeal of blue laws in late 20th century UK/US just opened up the market and made erotica more widely available. But people don't keep reading (for instance) Mary Shelley because she describes their 9-to-5; it's the opposite. Ditto erotica.

Humans like to invent narratives that evoke intense feeling in the audience -- we've been doing that for millennia. There's a psychological dynamic involved. It doesn't follow that keen readers of a genre will model their actual daily lives according to that genre. Most won't, and never have.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (6 children)

But the archetypes in this fiction aren't transgressive. They are traditional archetypes of masculinity.

"Zeus is the alpha of alphas."

gay biker MC erotic romance “Living off the grid and being an outlaw brings a dangerous reality.”

Billionaire BOSS: Secret Baby (Oh Billionaires!) He’s the man I absolutely hate.

billionaire badass CEO Collin Stark. Did I mention he's an ex-Army interrogator?

Nothing particularly transgressive there in the characters. Apart from the gay figures. Of course there is criminality. But that's a bad guy male stereotype.

Sure a lot of feminism denounces them. But then women carry on enjoying them.

Is there horror and fantasy in that list too? sure. But often mixed with strong masculine and feminine types and iconography.

Horror and erotica is certainly a common mix.

I also presume there is an amount of gay male porn being enjoyed by a female audience here. Probably another debate.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Transgressive narratives. And an archetype is not a character.

Looking forward to your thesis where you can define your terms and present a coherent argument for us, rather than just swapping words around and eliding meanings at will.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

The characters aren't transgressive then?

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Depends on how they're written, who they are, what they do, their motivation for doing it, and how or whether they subvert reader expectations or challenge cultural norms.

[–]worried19[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

checks hand ratio

Ha, I can't tell with mine. They look like a heterosexual digit ratio? I'm right handed. But I'm also more physically masculine than a lot of women, which would lead me to believe I had an atypical prenatal environment. So maybe it's not foolproof. What's your hand ratio?

To me the flat universal occurrence of the phenomena implies a natural cause.

It's not universal, though. Autogynephilia does not appear to be found in all cultures.

In other words, sex drive fully accounted for the sex difference in paraphilic interests.

But what about women? Are women with higher sex drives likely to have more paraphilias? I have zero, but my libido is through the roof.

Also, what's up with all these "asexual" kinksters who go around committing BDSM acts while also claiming to have no sexual drive or sexual attraction?

Again don't blame me for what is popular erotic work with women.

Not blaming you for anything. I think the female population is collectively traumatized. I do not believe female infants are born to want to be abused and treated as inferior to men.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

Ha, I can't tell with mine.

On your right hand if you stretch out your flat hand, which finger is longer?

Your index finger or your 4th, ginger, the ring finger?

I should say I'm not sure what to think of the idea.

If the evidence is good I would have to believe it.

It need only be a trend rather than one to one to be real.

They look like a heterosexual digit ratio? I'm right handed.

Isn't that heterosexuality among men?

But I'm also more physically masculine than a lot of women, which would lead me to believe I had an atypical prenatal environment. So maybe it's not foolproof. What's your hand ratio?

My right index finger is longer than my ring finger.

It's not universal, though. Autogynephilia does not appear to be found in all cultures.

Well I'm not a Blanchardian. Though it is very essentialist.

Perhaps a starting point is, are there straight crossdressers in all cultures? My guess is yes there are. But outside Western culture sexuality and gender are handled differently. But I still think crossdressers are linking into universal sexual frameworks.

Lots of non Western cultures are very traditional and very locked into a traditional gender roles. But also crossdressers are actually rare. It isn't common by percentage.

But what about women? Are women with higher sex drives likely to have more paraphilias? I have zero, but my libido is through the roof.

ha though isn't a high libido considered a perversion for a woman?

Though I do like the question. "Are women with higher libidos more perverse?" I'd like to know the scientific answer.

Also, what's up with all these "asexual" kinksters who go around committing BDSM acts while also claiming to have no sexual drive or sexual attraction?

Not sure. I think it's real. Although I would think sexuality and behaviour are linked, I think behaviour that is considered sexual might also serve non sexual purposes, like identity, so I think identity can be sexual. For instance people finding cultural forms attractive. So people feel attached to a cultural form even if it is not not sexual.

I also think some things are innately lend themselves to sexualization more than others because they are aesthetically or tactically pleasing. In that sense they can be pleasing without being sexual.

I also think some bdsm activities probably cause endorphin peaks. That might not be directly sexual.

[–]worried19[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

On your right hand if you stretch out your flat hand, which finger is longer? Your index finger or your 4th, ginger, the ring finger?

I literally can't tell. They're very close. If I put my right palm on the table, my ring finger seems longer. But if I put my palm to my face, my index finger seems longer. There's not a pronounced difference. And I can't tell any difference at all on my left hand. I believe not having a large difference is supposed to indicate heterosexuality in women.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45887691

My right index finger is longer than my ring finger.

That indicates less exposure to testosterone in the womb. But there are some people claiming this only predicts sexual orientation in women, while others say it can also predict orientation in men, as well as a host of other things too:

https://www.livescience.com/49883-finger-length-in-men.html

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161012095619.htm

I mean, who knows for sure? But there appears to be at least some biological stuff going on with regard to the prenatal environment. Although it's obviously not 100% either way. I always felt like nature intended for me to be a lesbian, but wires got crossed somewhere. But my digit ratio doesn't really support that.

Perhaps a starting point is, are there straight crossdressers in all cultures?

There don't appear to be. u/SnowAssMan may be more familiar with Blanchard's research on this topic.

ha though isn't a high libido considered a perversion for a woman?

Women used to be considered the more libidinous sex. Now society has flipped and decided it's men. But I don't believe high-libido women are considered perverted anymore. I don't see anyone shaming women who like to have sex multiple times a day. Hell, men are probably singing our praises. All women are now supposed to up for anything, even if it's not in our nature.

Though I do like the question. "Are women with higher libidos more perverse?" I'd like to know the scientific answer.

I'm curious as well. I would guess that higher libidos lead to more sexual experimentation, and more experimentation leads to perversity.

Not sure. I think it's real.

Eh, I think they're not true asexuals. I think they're primarily fetishists whose sexual pleasure comes from acting out their fetish. But that's different from having no sexual drive or sexual desires at all. I think maybe they label something as non-sexual when for them it is intensely sexual.

I also think some things are innately lend themselves to sexualization more than others because they are aesthetically or tactically pleasing. In that sense they can be pleasing without being sexual.

Like what? I'm coming up blank on that.

I also think some bdsm activities probably cause endorphin peaks. That might not be directly sexual.

Yeah, but there are more socially acceptable and mainstream ways to get an endorphin rush, if that is legitimately what they were after.

[–]anxietyaccount8 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I always felt like nature intended for me to be a lesbian, but wires got crossed somewhere. But my digit ratio doesn't really support that.

No offense but why say essentialist things like this? You can just appreciate your unique self.

There don't appear to be.

I highly doubt that men fetishizing women's clothing is something that Western men invented. Whether or not they actually crossdressed with them.

[–]worried19[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No offense but why say essentialist things like this? You can just appreciate your unique self.

I don't think it's essentialist. If sexual orientation is determined by prenatal androgens and I suspect I got stronger exposure to testosterone in the womb, then it would make sense for me to be a lesbian. Not like it was destiny or fate, but something was atypical in my development. It's just a weird feeling that I've always had. I used to wonder if I was intersex. And before I found GC feminism, I wondered if I was supposed to be transgender. I have since accepted I am fully female, but I still feel like there's something that must explain why I'm at the atypical end of things.

I highly doubt that men fetishizing women's clothing is something that Western men invented. Whether or not they actually crossdressed with them.

Oh, I'm sure lots of men worldwide have fetishized femininity and female clothing. But I don't know if that would have developed into autogynephilia in all cultures.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (8 children)

Regarding Digit ratios.

Among non-human mammals, exposure to androgens during critical periods of development leads to gynephilia (attraction to females), whereas the absence or low levels of prenatal androgens leads to androphilia (attraction to males). However, in humans, retrospective markers of prenatal androgens have only been associated with gynephilia among women, but not with androphilia among men. Here, we asked whether an indirect indication of prenatal androgen exposure, 2D:4D, differs between subsets of gay men delineated by anal sex role (ASR). ASR was used as a proxy for subgroups because ASR groups tend to differ in other measures affected by brain sexual differentiation, such as gender conformity. First, we replicated the finding that gay men with a receptive ASR preference (bottoms) report greater gender nonconformity (GNC) compared to gay men with an insertive ASR preference (tops). We then found that Tops have a lower (male-typical) average right-hand digit ratio than Bottoms, and that among all gay men the right-hand 2D:4D correlated with GNC, indicating that a higher (female-typical) 2D:4D is associated with increased GNC. Differences were found between non-exclusive and exclusive same-sex attraction and GNC, and ASR group differences on digit ratios do not reach significance when all non-heterosexual men are included in the analyses, suggesting greater heterogeneity in the development of non-exclusive same-sex sexual orientations. Overall, results support a role for prenatal androgens, as approximated by digit ratios, in influencing the sexual orientation and GNC of a subset of gay men.

Differences in digit ratios between gay men who prefer receptive versus insertive sex roles indicate a role for prenatal androgen

A problem with the strict environmental explanations is that environments change a lot but the patterns remain the same.

If a lot of these sexual behaviours had obvious environmental causes then the pattern would be obvious within the population. By that I mean if they meet online and find they all share a similar history then the pattern is clear. But that doesn't happen. Even if some have a similar background some don't, and some who do, don't share the same preference. Meaning the pattern isn't established.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Where are these "prenatal androgens" supposed to have come from?

Some of the papers I've read on this say these androgens come from the mother or "the womb." Which I find hilarious. The people (read: mostly men or women who've never had a child) think that pregnant women's bodies are akin to soda fountains with nozzles or spigots that arbitrarily douse embryos and fetuses with squirts of hormones as if they were either Coke/Pepsi or Sprite. In the case of DSDs, presumably the wombs squirt out the equivalents of less popular flavors like Dr Pepper and Orange soda.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, I find it suspicious that in all these speculative papers the focus is exclusively on presumed pre-natal hormone exposure. In humans, research on pre-natal hormone exposure can't be done coz it would be unethical & invasive to test the hormone levels of embryos and fetuses in utero.

However, after birth, research on hormone levels in humans certainly can be done without ethical concerns. We know that in the first six months of life, human babies go through a 5-month long "puberty of infancy" in which sex hormones, and particularly testosterone, climb to the very high levels that males experience during the puberty of adolescence. Certainly, if early exposure to androgens determines or shapes later sexual orientation, sex roles, preference for certain sexual positions etc, then it would make sense to measure babies' hormones during the puberty of infancy and see how the tested babies turned out later on in adolescence and adulthood.

It's curious that no such research is being done. And no one is calling for it. Hmm. /s

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

Where are these "prenatal androgens" supposed to have come from?

I thought it was an uncontroversial idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

Most extensively studied in organizational effects of hormones is congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH).[6] CAH is a genetic disease that results in exposure to high levels of androgens beginning early in gestation.

Isn't it a thing that is studied?

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You missed my point completely. A lot of people who speak of "prenatal androgen exposure" allege that fetal androgens come from the mother or from the womb, as if pregnant women and/or their wombs shower fetuses with "hormone washes" willy-nilly. When, in fact, prenatal androgens come from the fetus itself.

CAH and other hormonal disorders are the result of genetic anomalies in and inherent to the zygote/embyro/fetus; they are not conditions caused by the mother's body doing "something wrong" during pregnancy. Hypotheses about "hormonal washes in the womb" are usually advanced by people who have no understanding of how human development occurs in utero. Moreover, such hypotheses originally were cooked up by homophobes who sought to blame mothers and their wonky wombs for doing things to their children in utero that would make the kids turn out to be gay or otherwise different.

But CAH has nothing to do with the topic at hand (LOL, couldn't resist) here, which was the hypothesis you brought up that says digit ratios, sexual orientation - and whether gay men are tops or bottoms in - are a result of "prenatal androgen." The paper you brought to our attention and quoted at length from is called

Differences in digit ratios between gay men who prefer receptive versus insertive sex roles indicate a role for prenatal androgen

But it nowhere says where the prenatal androgen comes from. When I asked where the prenatal androgen is supposed to come from, you turned the attention to CAH, a medical condition that is considered a DSD and accounts for 88% of all DSDs.

This is bait & switch. It's disingenuous. And it exploits people with DSDs. Please leave them & their medical conditions out of the convo.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

Hypotheses about "hormonal washes in the womb" are usually advanced by people who have no understanding of how human development occurs in utero. Moreover, such hypotheses originally were cooked up by homophobes who sought to blame mothers and their wonky wombs for doing things to their children in utero that would make the kids turn out to be gay or otherwise different.

But the hormones from the fetus are causing the effect? Is that the case?

Are you saying we have no evidence on the effects of hormones in the womb on development? I suspect we do have good evidence from other animals.

This is bait & switch. It's disingenuous. And it exploits people with DSDs. Please leave them & their medical conditions out of the convo.

Bait and switch? It's all on the topic. I'm following the evidence. Now you're saying things can't be mentioned.

If you are correct then CAH should point to there being no pattern. Evidence on the topics should confirm your position.

How are we supposed to discuss sex and gender if we purposefully avoid taking about DSDs? When you say don't look at this I'm immediately suspicious.

Does this mean you reject Marc Breedlove's work?

You seem more the expert. What is your take?

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Are you saying we have no evidence on the effects of hormones in the womb on development? I suspect we do have good evidence from other animals.

What? Stop pretending that I said something totally different to what I said. I write very clearly.

I pointed out that in the case of the "prenatal androgen exposure" in these theories & experiments, the "hormones in the womb" come from the embryo/fetus itself. They don't come from the womb and/or the mother in some magical, unpredictable & utterly mysterious process whereby out of the blue androgens from who knows where start raining down on fetuses.

I never said there's no evidence of the effects of hormones on development - in the womb or outside it. Nor would I say such a thing. Hormones in early development have lots of effects, just as they do later in life. Female people are very familiar with the impact of hormones. Coz our sex hormones vary over the course of each monthly menstrual cycle and our lifetimes in ways & to an extent that males' sex hormones do not. Having gone through pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding & menopause, I know all about hormones & their effects firsthand.

What I am saying & you are ignoring is that a great deal could be learned about effects of androgens and other sex hormones on human development by testing the hormones levels of newborns during the puberty of infancy, then following kids as they grow up to see if there is any connection between androgens & estrogen levels in the first months of life and how people turn out later on as they go through childhood, adolescence and adulthood.

In case you aren't familiar with it, the puberty of infancy is a 5-month long period that starts about 4 weeks after birth when human male babies have testosterone levels as high as in the puberty of adolescence, and when baby girls' estrogen levels also are very high (though not as high as the T in male babies).

Logically, there's reason to think that the hormones & hormone levels produced by neonates during the puberty of infancy would probably be consistent with, or at least would shed light on, the hormones & hormone levels that the same children produced in the preceding months when they were still in the womb.

But even if this weren't the case, the fact is that the puberty of infancy presents an ideal situation when neonatal sex hormones are extremely high & they can be easily ascertained with 100% accuracy via simple blood tests that can be performed with no ethical issues. (Testing the hormone levels of fetuses would put their lives at risk, but doing blood draws on newborns does not.) It would be very easy to do these tests & follow kids to see if there's a connection between the kind & level of sex hormones that infants produce & are "exposed to" in the first 6 months of life and the characteristics and behaviors they develop as they grow up & go through life, including digit ratios, sexual orientation, preference for certain sex positions/roles, conformity or lack of to masculine & feminine sex stereotypes, etc.

But no one is doing this research. In fact, no one is even suggesting it. Coz that would take real work and might yield results that don't fit with the speculative ideas of the gender theorists & others from the "soft sciences" & humanities where these sorts of hypotheses tend to come from & where they gain so much credence. It seems to me that "scholars" who propose and advance ideas about cross-sex "gender identities," homosexuality "gender nonconformity," digit ratios, preferences for certain kinds of sex acts/positions and so on all being caused by "hormone washes" and "androgen exposure" in the womb would rather just speculate instead of finding out some actual verifiable facts.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

What about the experiments in other animals?

But no one is doing this research. In fact, no one is even suggesting it. Coz that would take real work and might yield results that don't fit with the speculative ideas of the gender theorists & others from the "soft sciences" & humanities where these sorts of hypotheses tend to come from & where they gain so much credence.

I'm sorry you're claiming that this is suppressed science because of a political agenda?

I'm not quite following your understanding here.

I'll get accused of doing a Cathy Newman again.

You're saying the relevant scientific community has been avoiding doing a simple test on hormones in newborns because they know it will show that hormones don't have an effect, or do? This is because they are homophobic or pro trans. I'm not clear on your take here?

What is is that they are trying to avoid showing?

How long has the suppression been going on?

How simple is the test?

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wow, if jumping to conclusions were an Olympic event, you'd be a gold medalist!

I never said any research was being suppressed. I said it wasn't being done. Not necessarily coz of suppression or a plot or a political agenda, but coz of blind spots, lack of interest, and the way academia and research is Balkanized. The people involved in neonatal medicine and science who would be "the relevant scientific community" here are mostly not gender ideologues, sexologists, sociologists or theorists out of the humanities like Butler & Foucault. The intriguing questions they are interested in researching are different to the ones that you & the "scholars" you cite are. Moreover, in the biological sciences since the 1990s there has been a move away from the focus on hormones in basic science research having to do with sex differences and instead the focus is now on sex chromosomes, genes and cells.

However, if the QT crowd were interested, I imagine they could easily find some researchers in the life sciences to collaborate with - and they'd have no problem getting such research funded. But there's never any of that. All the QT people seem to like to keep things purely theoretical and speculative. Which is also why no research has been done or is being done on all the kids now dubbed "trans" to see if there's anything different about them physically that sets them apart from other kids, such as hormones, genetics, brains, digit ratios, propensity for left-handedness, etc.

How simple is the test?

By "the test" do you mean blood tests for hormone levels? If so, I dunno what happens in the lab, but I do know hormone testing has been done for a very long time & is quite standard & probably pretty cheap & easy. I also know that neonates & babies have their blood drawn for testing all the time. In fact, in the US, drawing blood from newborns to test them for various genetic conditions long has been mandatory in every state, territory & the District of Columbia. In many other countries this is the case too.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (21 children)

Soooo. I don't agree with Blanchard one bit, so I'm not gonna go there. But since you mentioned sadism and masochism I'm gonna use that as my jumping off point. I've recently read "different loving" which is basically a collection of interviews with different people in the kink community. One of the common threads in these stories is, that their kinks showed signs in early childhood. I think that this makes it likely that there is at least some non environmental influence on paraphilia. Writing this I notice that this explanation is really vague and can be applied to almost anything, but oh well. Trauma can also cause paraphilias as a coping mechanism. Especially sexual trauma. Just look at r/Rapekink for a multitude of examples.

Why are paraphilias more common in men than in women. I agree that testosterone is likely a huge contributor here. There are a few studies showing that testosterone can affect libido, especially the way it works. That doesn't explain 20:1 but is probably part of it. Another part probably has to do with gender [the GC definition]. Women weren't allowed to pursue and discover their sexuality in many places until recently and in even more they still aren't allowed to. This is supported by a study finding that greater masculinity correlates with greater arousal by paraphilias in women only.

Women are also more often victims of sexual harassment which may lead to the greater disapproval rate of paraphilias among them. Interestingly a bigger study in a non clinical sample seems to show similar arousal of certain paraphilias between men and women, most courious masochism imo. But that's just something interesting I noticed.

Overall I consider this topic really interesting and think it deserves more research. AFAIK many aspects of women's sexuality are criminaly underresearched.

[–]worried19[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I wanted to address this part:

One of the common threads in these stories is, that their kinks showed signs in early childhood. I think that this makes it likely that there is at least some non environmental influence on paraphilia.

Perhaps, but this is complicated by the fact that most people do not remember their early childhoods very well. Therefore they could be influenced by traumas and inappropriate sexual influences that they cannot consciously remember, including physical punishments, shaming, etc. Also, there's the problem of unreliable memory. Did the parents notice this kink behavior, or is it only remembered by an adult looking back on their childhood and interpreting certain feelings according to their current worldview? We are also assuming the person's memory is reliable.

Not to say that there couldn't be some biological influence, but I don't think a biological predisposition would be enough to trigger a paraphilia all on its own.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (19 children)

While I agree that anecdotal evidence isn't great evidence there are some really common stories in the community. Eg the rigger tying up their stuffed animals.

but I don't think a biological predisposition would be enough to trigger a paraphilia all on its own

I mostly agree. But if we assume a genetic disposition exists and there is some threshold where any given paraphilia manifests, then some people may be so close to the threshold that seeing a related image [someone tied to a tree in the rigger/rope bunny example] may be enough to get them to explore their atypical sexual interests.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But if we assume a genetic disposition exists and there is some threshold where any given paraphilia manifests, then some people may be so close to the threshold that seeing a related image [someone tied to a tree in the rigger/rope bunny example] may be enough to get them to explore their atypical sexual interests.

If that theory is true, wouldn't these atypical interests be much more common in the general populace given that gazillions of people had religious upbringings as children that meant we were routinely exposed to myriad images & stories of grotesque physical torture of humans and taught to look upon extreme suffering as saintly? Such as grisly images & tales of Christ being forced to wear a crown of thorns as he made his way - beaten, bloodied, humiliated - to Calvary, where he was then crucified. Of Saint Sebastian shot with arrows; Agatha of Sicily who was tortured with iron hooks, stretched on a rack, had her body parts burnt & her breasts torn off with pincers; Saint Lucy who plucked her own eyes out; Catherine of Alexandria who was imprisoned & scourged so that her blood ran in streams; medieval flagellants; and John the Baptist being beheaded and then his head being served on a platter.

A number of religious traditions are quite detailed in describing to children & adults the various kinds of suffering the sinful are bound to endure in hell and/or purgatory. Do you think this is related to people developing or exploring atypical sexual interests?

Have the paintings & replicas of paintings by artists like Hieronymus Bosch brought out people's inborn paraphilias and proclivities?

Accounts of many historical events have described humans torturing & abusing other humans in great detail...

I'm not being snide & snarky here. I think that religious & historical images & stories of physical torture & suffering does affect people exposed to them, particularly in childhood, in profound ways. I'm just not sure they lead to, or bring out, paraphilias.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (4 children)

You raise an interesting point. I personally think that the people whose baseline is this high are quite rare and consider them extreme cases. I also think that the people amount of people that are close enough to the threshold to develop a kink without major external influences is quite low. Maybe 7 to 10% of the population.

While it's true that martyrdom portraits suffering as saintly its also explicitly not sexual. Even more most religions are explicitly anti sex and someone exposed to these stories may be more likely to repress their sexuality and feel guilty if they have sexual thoughts from these stories. Context is important when looking at these stories. But I'm more speaking from experience as someone who is kinky and grew up in a Christian household, than from any hard data or conversation I had with other kinksters on the topic.

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Even more most religions are explicitly anti sex and someone exposed to these stories may be more likely to repress their sexuality and feel guilty if they have sexual thoughts from these stories

I was raised Roman Catholic in the US in the 1960s. I'm not "kinky" - or at least I don't think I am - though in my life I have been let's say sexually adventurous & open-minded... But I was steeped in the kinds of religious imagery I mentioned above. And I perceived a definite erotic element to those stories & imagery. So did most of my friends, classmates & siblings who also grew up RC. As kids & young adults we talked about this a lot.

It's hard not to think of sex and to eroticize martyrdom when over every bed in your home hangs a crucifix showing the sculpted body of a nearly-naked long-haired man of 33, LOL. And when as a child you're forced to commit to memory descriptions of all the horrors of the flesh detailed in such books as Lives of the Saints.

Even more most religions are explicitly anti sex and someone exposed to these stories may be more likely to repress their sexuality and feel guilty if they have sexual thoughts from these stories

I'm not sure I buy your contention that "most religions are explicitly anti sex". The Roman Catholicism I was raised in was/is definitely not "explicitly anti sex"! Roman Catholicism is very pro-sex & pro-sexual pleasure so long as sex & sexual pleasure occur in the context of heterosexual marriage and is done with procreation in mind. (Or for the pleasure of pedophilic & sex abusing male clergy operating on the DL.)

Neither Judaism or Islam seem "anti sex" to me, either. They are pro-sex, so long as it's sex that gives males pleasure & allows them to father children & perpetuate male supremacy.

You say you

grew up in a Christian household

Can you be more specific? What kind of Christianity & in what country & era? I find that a lot of people who grew up in fundamentalist Christian sects in the era since the 1980s don't realize that their brand of Christianity is NOT representative of all Christianity globally or over time.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (2 children)

Sure. I grew up on a catholic household on the 90s/ 2000s in Germany. Early in my life my parents joined a catholic cult called regnum christ and I went through their kids organization NET and ECYD and went to their private school for a bit. Given that the cult has papal approval I assumed that it would at least be a decent indicator of general catholic upbringing.

I got confronted with hell at an early age and it took me till recently to get rid of the fear programmed into me. This has greatly impacted my sexuality in general and definetly colors my perspective and I'm grateful for yours.

Roman Catholicism is very pro-sex & pro-sexual pleasure so long as sex & sexual pleasure occur in the context of heterosexual marriage and is done with procreation in mind.

I agree, but I don't consider this stance sex positive. To use a bad analogy - cuz im bad at good ones - it's comparable to beeing salad positive but only Caesar salad in a glass bowl without dressing. Also if you do it any other way you're gonna be roasted alive forever and make your best friend really sad.

Both Judaism and Islam seem similarly restrictive to me. I assume our bar for sex positive is set in a different place.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for sharing that info. Your upbringing sounds awful. I'd always heard that Regnum Christi was a weird Catholic sect/cult founded & led by a controversial cleric known for sex abuse who was widely criticized both within & outside RC circles.

I got confronted with hell at an early age too. I spent many a sleepless night as a young child worrying about the fate of all my loved ones who were unbaptised & not Catholics. I also worried a great deal about all the babies who died at birth that Catholics originally said went to Limbo, but who were written out of existence & the afterlife when the Catholic Church decided in the late 60s to relegate the idea of Limbo to the dustbin.

I am glad you were able to get rid of the fear programmed into you. For me, my siblings & other survivors of mid-20th century Catholic upbringings, it's still an ongoing process. Which is why we call ourselves recovering Catholics rather than lapsed ones. I have known many people raised Catholic who after not believing or practicing for decades reverted back to the superstitious beliefs of childhood upbringing when facing a major tragedy, a serious medical crisis or death. In my living will and all my medical forms about my wishes for end-of-life care, I say I am a "deathbed Catholic." Which means that just to be on the safe side, please when I am at risk of dying call a priest & get me last rites. Just in case the hogwash I had rammed down my throat as a kid is true after all.

I agree, but I don't consider this stance sex positive. To use a bad analogy - cuz im bad at good ones - it's comparable to beeing salad positive but only Caesar salad in a glass bowl without dressing. Also if you do it any other way you're gonna be roasted alive forever and make your best friend really sad.

But I never used the term "sex positive." You claimed that "most religions are explicitly anti sex." In response, I simply said

The Roman Catholicism I was raised in was/is definitely not "explicitly anti sex"! Roman Catholicism is very pro-sex & pro-sexual pleasure so long as sex & sexual pleasure occur in the context of heterosexual marriage and is done with procreation in mind. (Or for the pleasure of pedophilic & sex abusing male clergy operating on the DL.)

Neither Judaism or Islam seem "anti sex" to me, either. They are pro-sex, so long as it's sex that gives males pleasure & allows them to father children & perpetuate male supremacy.

I wouldn't use the term "sex positive" in discussions of religion or any other topic. "Sex positive" has negative connotations in my mind, as it's used to justify porn, prostitution & sex trafficking & slavery.

But the more important point you are overlooking here is that for all the many fucked up things that Catholicism teaches kids & taught people like you & me in times of yore, it remains a fact that redemption & forgiveness are at the core of RC dogma. According to Catholic teachings, no matter what you or I do or did, we will NOT be "roasted alive forever" so long as we confess our "sins" and repent prior to death.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for your response. I'm honestly happy, that you're able to find a way to deal with the damaging religous programming you have had to endure and sincerely hope you find happiness despite it.

I injected my own opinion into your comment and am sorry I did so. Im writing from my phone and have to memorize stuff and this happens sometimes. I personally wouldn't call the catholic stance pro sex either. For the reasons outlined before. It's to restrictive and controlling.

Regarding forgiveness. I'm not necessarily overlooking it as much as intentionally not considering it. The version of the catechism I had to memorize during my upbringing was quite specific that this "forgiveness" s is only granted to those that earnestly repent as in regret the sins they've committed and make an active commitment to improve in the future. Same with complete absolutions. Since these "sins" are controlling basic human instincts, especially in the case of homosexuality requiring a "sinner" to repent from them is cruel at best. So while I agree that redemption and forgiveness are core parts of catholic dogma the forgiveness of the rcc isn't as universal or loving as they like to portray outwards and imo just another way to control their members.

[–]worried19[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I'm skeptical something as innocuous as that could trigger a full-blown paraphilia. But I did have two different people on Reddit tell me that one of their first "signs" of having kinks was watching Disney's freaking Jungle Book movie.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Precisely which movie version of Disney's Jungle Book do they cite? There have been half a dozen Disney JB movies since the late 1960s plus at least as many TV and video game spinoffs...I'd love to know which one is ostensibly linked to kinks.

[–]worried19[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The Disney cartoon movie from 1967. It was something about the snake hypnotizing people. I remember thinking I ought to keep my future kids away from it in case it corrupts their sexuality.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Thank you for clarifying! I guess in the case of me, my siblings, peers and all our kids, the train has already left the station. Funny thing, though - I don't think any of us are on reddit kink subs. LOL

[–]worried19[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Ha, yeah, I admit I'm at a loss to understand how an innocent, non-sexual movie could cause little kids to be sexually aroused.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Gotta re-frame your locus of "sexual" from genitalia and sex and nekkedness to paraphilia. It's non-sexual to the non-paraphile.

I've also collected many anecdotes from people with sadomasochistic interests that Disney films were their first recognition that the concept in the film was interesting to them.

[–]worried19[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I guess it must happen, but it's so strange to me. I'm guessing the kids first had their innocence corrupted elsewhere because I don't think a regular movie could corrupt a child all on its own.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 4 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 6 fun -  (3 children)

What do you mean by full blown paraphilia? I'm not talking about paraphilic disorders. A paraphilia is simply a deviant sexual interest. And like any interest could be triggered by all kinds of related things.

[–]worried19[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I just meant a full-blown deviant sexual interest. Like bondage or masochism or something. I don't think an innocent non-sexual scene in a movie could cause that all on its own.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks for the answer. Would you allow me to rephrase my question: Can you give me an example for a deviant sexual interest that isn't "full blown" ?

[–]worried19[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not sure. I was trying to differentiate between paraphiliac disorders and less extreme deviant sexual interests. I guess someone with a disorder is unable to get aroused by anything else. A person with a deviant sexual interest most likely would enjoy things unrelated to the kink or fetish, but still has a "full-blown" affinity for deviant stuff.

I suppose it's also possible to have mild deviant sexual interests. But I still don't think even the mild stuff could be caused solely by childhood exposure to non-sexual material.