Explaining Paraphilia: A Novel Model Explaining A Wide Range of Sexual Interests Continuous With Normal Sexuality
Explaining Paraphilia: A Novel Model Explaining A Wide Range of Sexual Interests Continuous With Normal Sexuality
To my knowledge, understanding of paraphilias has not grown much in the scientific literature, with a lack of modern models that explain paraphilia in the context of evolved normal human sexuality, most hypotheses focusing on specific causes that do not take into account the correlations between sexual interests and the correlates of sexual interests. In this post I explain and test a model of paraphilia explaining interests such as BDSM, bodily fluid, taboo, partialist sexual interests linking them with traits such as sociosexuality, androphilia and gynephilia, disgust, with explanations in physiological causes and evolution, in a way that is continuous with normal sexuality.
A Need For Modern Explanations
I argue that current scientific explanations for sexual interests are poor and do not fit well with real world data. One example is sexual interest in feet, which has been explained as a simple “cross wiring” of brain regions, or being symbolistic, however this does not explain the strong correlations with sexual interest in feet and various other unusual sexual interests (Schippers et al. 2021), and the male-typical prevalence (Schippers et al. 2021). Other sexual interests have been given explanations, however they do not sufficiently link them with evolution, normal sexuality, physiological causes, their correlates, etc. Most of the research and ideas about paraphilia are symbolistic and resemble psychoanalytic ideas, which are not well up to date with modern understanding of psychology.
Disgust and Sexuality
Sexuality is in itself, to some degree disgusting and taboo. Most cultures discourage and enforce public display of sexuality, open discussion about sexuality, and prescribe rules for what are acceptable sexual behaviors, which are often enforced with severe punishment of some sort. Paraphilic sexual interests are quite common (Schippers et al. 2021) despite them being perceived as abnormal, often the defining reason for their abnormality being the fact that they are disgusting (Rees 2022). Where does one draw the line between a normal and abnormal sexual interest? Perhaps, this depends on the threshold for someone to consider it as disgusting rather than arousing. Even the basic act of sex is still disgusting if it is with a person that is not of sexual interest (e.g., that is very unattractive, that is not of the sex they are attracted to, if that person is a family member), and is only arousing when the right conditions are met. People who are asexual, perceive all sexual interests as disgusting and strange (Yule et al. 2014) - why would you want to see someone naked - that's gross! It is no surprise then that a person’s sex drive is a strong predictor of having any unusual sexual interests (Yule et al. 2014). Sociosexuality is a trait linked to sex drive that relates to how unrestricted a person's sexuality is - those low in sociosexuality are highly selective of the circumstances in which they would engage in sexual behavior, such whether they are in a committed relationship with the person (Webster & Bryan 2006), and sociosexuality is strongly inversely related to sexual disgust (O’Shea et al. 2019). Sociosexuality like sex drive is associated with having more unusual sexual interests (Thomas et al. 2020). Methamphetamine, a drug that produces massive elevations in dopamine can induce sexual behaviors in individuals that differ from how the individual behaves sober, causing interest in a wide range of paraphilic and deviant sexual interests that the person finds disgusting when not using methamphetamine, including engagement in homosexual behavior in straight individuals, and a general increase in sociosexual tendency (Farhoudian et al. 2016). Dopamine is a major neurotransmitter involved in the mediation of sex drive and arousal, and prolactin, a hormone which functions in part to inhibit sex drive post orgasm works in large part by suppressing dopamine activity (Kruger et al. 2005). Elevated serotonin is associated with higher disgust sensitivity (Cloudfindings 2024), and low sex drive, sexual dysfunction being a common side effect of serotonergic antidepressants (Balon 2006). Drugs that increase serotonin, in contrast to drugs that increase dopamine, reduce paraphilic behaviors in individuals who normally have paraphilic behaviors (Greenberg et al. 1997). Paraphilias are highly intercorrelated with each other (Schippers et al. 2021) suggesting a common underlying factor linking interest in all paraphilias. If paraphilias link to a common factor, and can be suppressed and induced by modulating sex drive and disgust through biological means that also modulate ‘normal’ sexual interests in the same manner, this suggests that paraphilias and normal sexuality have an innate biological relation to disgust.
Attraction and Arousal
Typically, people are more aroused by sexual relations if they are attracted to the person, and disgusted if they are not attracted to the person (e.g., an average straight man would like to kiss a pretty and fit woman, but not a fat old man). It is clear then that what is sexually disgusting is not universally disgusting in all circumstances, and can produce arousal or disgust depending on the circumstance. What if someone was sexually disgusted in every circumstance? They would not reproduce, at least on their own will, because they would never desire sexual intercourse. What if someone was never sexually disgusted? They would contract diseases, engage in sex which does not lead to reproduction, engage in sex which leads to poor offspring quality (e.g., incest), and would not prefer to reproduce with individuals with “good genes”. This suggests that disgust and arousal are manifestations of the same thing mediated by attraction. The experience of disgust and arousal are both associated with elevations in norepinephrine (Kruger et al. 1998)(Fluitman et al. 2010) and a fear-like physiological response, disgust and fear sharing similar underpinnings (Cisler & Olatunji 2008). Mice bred to experience high levels of brain excitability show anxious and hypersexual behavior (Weil et al. 2006), and inhibitory anti-excitatory drugs reduce anxiety and sexual arousal (Gulliford 2010)(Boyd & Moore 1990). There is some evidence that sociosexuality is associated with higher pathogen disgust sensitivity, in contrast to its association with low sexual disgust sensitivity (Hlay et al. 2022). Additionally, serotonin is associated with high sexual disgust and cautiousness, but low anxiety and fear (Fisher et al. 2015), and increasing serotonin reduces obsessive compulsive behavior including fear of contamination (Landeros-Weisenberger et al. 2014) (which concerns pathogen disgust). Methamphetamine, which reduces sexual disgust, can cause obsessive-compulsive behavior including contamination fears (Karacok et al. 2017). Anxiety and fear of disease are positively associated with unusual sexual interests (Schippers et al. 2021). All of this evidence together suggests that disgust, fear, and sexual arousal are positively related in their underlying mechanisms, and that attraction and other circumstances affect whether something is sexually disgusting or arousing.
Intimacy and Body-Related Arousal
Why are people sexually aroused by merely seeing or physically touching someone's body, rather than the act of sex itself, and why does covering up one's body prevent arousal from seeing it? Likely, it is because seeing someone naked, for example, typically would only happen in a context where sex is likely to take place. The more disgusting a body part or bodily interaction is, the more “private” it is, and the more it is something that is reserved for intimate situations where sex is likely to occur. What is considered intimate varies with culture, for example some religions enforce that women cover up nearly their entire bodies around anyone except for their husband and other specific permitted people. Similarly, in such cultures it may be considered taboo and disgusting to not follow such rules, just as it would be to strip naked in public in America. Non-reproductive activities such as kissing are treated as sexual and intimate and are arousing or disgusting depending on the circumstance, because it is the fact that it is disgusting that makes it intimate and sexual. The experience of “private” or disgusting things with a person of desire is arousing because it is indicative that sex is likely to occur, and the tendency to experience arousal from “private” or intimate things likely has evolved to produce arousal from such things for this purpose. It is for this reason that sexual interest in bodily targets that aren’t considered sexual may emerge - for example, feet are considered disgusting, therefore they may cause arousal through indicating intimacy, and urinating is considered disgusting and private, therefore may cause arousal in the right situation by indicating intimacy.
Dominance, Masochism, and Sex Differences
BDSM is a common cluster of sexual activities related to dominance and submission. Sexual interest in masochism and submission is female-typical, and dominance & sadism male-typical (Schippers et al. 2021). Activities associated with masochism, such as having pain inflicted upon oneself, having one's movement restricted, and being put in danger (Schippers et al. 2021) all relate to the experience of fear, as if one were someones pray - activities associated with dominance, such as inflicting pain, having power to force someone into sexual acts, relate to the experience of anger and aggression, as if one were a predator attacking pray. Fear and anger are both emotions of arousal linked to norepinephrine (Lee et al. 2007), and women are more fearful (Kajonius & Johnson 2018), and men more aggressive (Archer 2004). In nature, especially in a sexual context, men are likely to be the sexual predators of women, women being likely to be sexually predated (Kaczynski 2008). It is partly this reason that women are more prone to anxiety and fear, as they are more likely to be predated upon by males, and by physical limitations are less able to fight off a potential male predator, as shown in studies where situations involving males are more anxiety producing than with females (Brody et al. 1995). Perhaps, it is not always evolutionarily beneficial to fear the aggression of men however - women are more afraid of being at the mercy of a man for sexual gratification, but also more likely to be sexually aroused by such situations - perhaps, like with physical intimacy, being predated by someone you are attracted to and want to reproduce with is bound to be arousing. It's clear that masochism, especially with its high prevalence, does not mean an individual desires to practice those sexual interests with any random person (contrary to what some rape myths may suggest), just as a straight man who wants to kiss a pretty woman doesn’t necessarily want to kiss an old ugly fat man. Given that men are less sexually selective than men, it's likely that the experience of arousal from sexual dominance can be experienced in any situation where the target is physically attractive, and the practice of dominance consensually produces arousal by simulating sexual predation, producing the aggressive arousal which translates to sexual arousal even if not actually predating the target or perceiving it as predation consciously.
Taboo
Less prevalent, but still common enough to be recognized as are sexual interests in things that are culturally forbidden and not productive evolutionarily, such as sexual interest in animals, children, or relatives. The experience of arousal from such sexual interests likely has not evolved itself as such sexual activities are not productive evolutionarily and may also be dangerous. Instead, such interests may be an evolutionary byproduct of the mechanisms that determine whether something is sexually arousing or aversive (fear, disgust, anger). As discussed, the threshold for what is arousing or disgusting can be modified pharmacologically, to the point of engaging in behaviors which one would normally be repulsed by, such as homosexual behavior in normally straight men. Instead of changing one's sexual orientation, this effect happens through massive reduction in sexual disgust and restraint, where homosexuality likely becomes a taboo-driven fetish. Given the infrequency of taboo sexual interests, it suggests that they occur at maladaptive extremes at traits, such as with personality traits that can be maladaptive and pathological at their extremes, and the trait in question may be conversion of negative arousal to sexual arousal.
The Disgust-Arousal Inversion Hypothesis
I propose that an evolved mechanism of disgust and other negative arousal “inversion” into sexual arousal is the driving force behind sexual interests from the most normative to the most perverted. This model can explain all normative sexual interests, which involve activity that would be disgusting outside of a context where sexual activity would be desired, along with sexual interests considered unusual - they are considered unusual because they are disgusting, but their very existence is because they are disgusting. This can be extended to paraphilias which involve other mechanisms of arousal, such as violence, pain, fear, and aggression, which like disgust cause physiological arousal that may be desirable in a context of attraction, such as in BDSM which is another common sexual interest (Schippers et al. 2021). Even with a lack of sexual interest, disgusting things should be treated as less disgusting in the context of attraction. The degree to which a person experiences the “inversion” of disgust in the context of attraction should predict normative and unusual sexual interests, and the inversion of disgust to arousal toward both normative and unusual bodily/sexual interests should load on a common latent factor. Less disgusting bodily related things (e.g., hands) should also load on this factor. Hand and foot sexual interests might relate to disgust inversion as well as sex, and I hypothesize that sexual interest in feet should be associated with male-typical sexual orientation, and hand interest with female-typical sexual orientation. Dominance and masochism related paraphilia should be associated with male-typical and female-typical sexuality respectively. To test this model, I conducted two surveys with PsyToolkit (Stoet 2010, 2017).
Study 1
A body of items were generated to assess attitudes toward sexuality, experiences of disgust in relation to different contexts, a range of paraphilic and normal sexual interests, attraction to male and female characteristics, sex drive, sociosexuality, and reported arousal-disgust towards bodily targets of strangers or family members versus sexual partners. Scales were also made to assess plasticity and stability, higher orders factors of the “big five”, that are thought to relate to dopamine and serotonin, which hold high relevance to this model. The study had 176 participants.
Results
Bodily Disgust & Bodily Disgust Inversion
Principal components analysis of the bodily disgust items revealed a component relating to disgust towards bodily targets regardless of the subject called “bodily disgust”, and a second component with disgust and arousal towards bodily targets loading in opposite directions depending on whether the subject is a sexual partner or stranger/family member, consistent with the hypothesized latent factor [Table 1]
Table 1
Androphilia & Gynephilia
Principal components analysis of the items relating to characteristics which individuals rated as desirable or undesirable in a partner resulted in four varimax rotated factors, two of which corresponding to attraction to male characteristics and attraction to female characteristics. The other two seemed to relate to characteristics that are traditionally desirable or practical for a long term relationship, and desired conventionality of partner/conventional desires [Table 2].
Table 2
Sexuality Experiences & Attitudes
Principal components analysis of the items relating to sexual attitudes and experiences produced five varimax rotated factors, corresponding to sexual restraint (vs sociosexuality), intimacy/acceptance in relationships, introverted or non-committed attitude toward sexuality, sex drive, and bodily disgust [Table 3]. This bodily disgust factor was not used in the analyses, rather the first component from the analysis that extracted bodily disgust inversion was used.
Table 3
Sexual Interests
Principal components analysis of the items relating to usual and unusual sexual interests resulted in the extraction of four varimax rotated factors, corresponding to dominance, masochism, taboo or forbidden sexual interests, and bodily related interests - a general paraphilia factor was also able to be extracted as predicted [Table 4].
Table 4
Plasticity & Stability
Factor analysis of the plasticity and stability factors extracted two factors corresponding with items intended to measure the respective traits [Table 5].
Table 5
Correlations & Predictions
The factor scores obtained were used for measurement of the corresponding traits in the analyses. Factors with inverted loadings (e.g., plasticity which has negative loadings for plasticity items) had the scores inverted to match what they intend to measure (e.g., a positive correlation with the plasticity factor would reflect a positive correlation with plasticity).
Sexual Interest in Feet & Hands
Bodily disgust inversion correlated insignificantly with sexual interest in feet (r=0.12) and hands (r=0.14). A multiple regression of androphilia, gynephilia, and bodily disgust inversion revealed bodily disgust inversion to predict sexual interest in feet at a barely significant level (p=0.049), and androphilia to negatively predict sexual interest in feet (p=0.027), consistent with sexual interest in feet being male-typical. When overall bodily disgust was added to the regression, the effect of bodily disgust inversion increased (p=0.021), and bodily disgust was the strongest (negative) predictor out of all the variables (p<0.0001). Unexpectedly, bodily disgust inversion did not predict sexual interest in hands after regression with androphilia, gynephilia, and bodily disgust inversion, even when bodily disgust was added into the model, however bodily disgust negatively predicted sexual interest in hands (p<0.0001). Before the regressions, androphilia weakly negatively correlated with sexual interest in feet (r=-0.16), and insignificantly with interest in hands (r=0.10).
Predictors of Paraphilia Factors
The general factor of paraphilia at p<0.05 correlated with bodily disgust (r=-0.45), sexual restraint (r=-0.45), intimacy (r=0.23), sex drive (r=0.32), plasticity (r=0.25), and stability (r=-0.33). These findings are consistent with the predictions of the proposed model of paraphilia.
The dominance factor of paraphilia correlated with bodily disgust (r=-0.26), sexual restraint (r=-0.21), and androphilia (r=-0.26). The negative correlation with androphilia is consistent with the hypothesis that dominance related sexual interests are evolutionarily related to male-typical sexuality - dominance weakly correlated with gynephilia though insignificantly (r=0.13).
The masochism factor correlated with sexual restraint (r=-0.49), androphilia (r=0.32), plasticity (r=0.26), and stability (r=-0.19). The negative correlation with androphilia is consistent with the hypothesis that masochism is evolutionarily related to female sexuality - the correlations with sexual restraint and stability suggest it may relate to a particular fast life history variant of female sexuality.
The taboo factor correlated with bodily disgust inversion (r=-0.18), intimacy (r=0.18), non-commitment (r=0.19), androphilia (r=-0.27), gynephilia (r=-0.15), and plasticity (r=-0.25).
The bodily interests factor correlated with bodily disgust (r=-0.40), bodily disgust inversion (r=0.22), and androphilia (r=-0.25). The correlation with bodily disgust inversion is consistent with the model proposed in this paper.
Predictors of Sexuality Factors
Bodily disgust inversion correlated with non-commitment (r=-0.41), and plasticity (r=0.25). It had an insignificant positive correlation with sex drive (r=0.14).
Bodily disgust was correlated with non-commitment (r=0.20), sex drive (r=-0.21), gynephilia (r=-0.18), sexual restraint (r=0.30), and plasticity (r=-0.41).
Sexual restraint was correlated with bodily disgust (r=0.30), androphilia (r=-0.18), gynephilia (r=-0.27), and plasticity (r=-0.31). It correlated insignificantly with stability (r=0.13)
Sex drive was negatively associated with bodily disgust (r=-0.21), non-commitment (r=-0.27), and stability (r=-0.21).
Effects of Trauma
Having experienced sexual assault or coercion was associated with masochism (r=0.29), and negatively with general paraphilia (r=-0.26). It was also associated with lower sexual restraint (r=-0.27), higher sex drive (r=0.29), and androphilia (r=0.23). Given that women may be more likely to experience sexual trauma, it was tested whether being female is a confounding variable in these correlations. The correlation of sexual trauma with masochism remained when put in a multiple regression with androphilia and gynephilia, as it did for sexual restraint, and sex drive. A regression with sexual trauma, androphilia, gynephilia, sexual restraint, and sex drive on masochism showed that only androphilia and low sexual restraint remained as predictors of masochism, suggesting that sexual trauma may lead to a reduction in sexual restraint, which leads to increased masochistic sexual interests.
Study 2
A body of items were generated to assess bodily disgust and bodily disgust inversion, this time including targets of someone one is attracted to, someone is in a close relationship or friendship with, someone one is not attracted to, and a stranger, including more items of disgust or arousal such as kissing, sexual intercourse, and faces. A body of items was generated to assess paraphilias, with some new items added and changed from the previous study. Items loading on the androphilia and gynephilia factors as well as the conventional from the previous study were used to measure androphilia and gynephilia, and conventionality. Items from the sexual restraint, sex drive and intimacy factors from the previous were included as scales in the study, as well as the sexual disgust scale which has been used in other studies (Cloudfindings 2024). Pathological narcissism was measured with the short pathological narcissism inventory (B-PNI). Shortened versions of the McLean Screening Instrument (Zanarini et al. 2003), the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (Levenson et al. 1995), and the Brief Histrionic Personality Scale (Ferguson & Negy 2014) were used to measure borderline, primary & secondary psychopathic, and histrionic personality traits as discussed in Cloudfindings (2023) which reported findings from this same dataset in dataset 1. Positive and impulsive schizotypy were measured with the Unusual Experiences and Impulsive-Nonconformity subscales of the short O-LIFE (Mason et al. 2005), and disorganized & negative schizotypy with the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire Brief-Revised (Cohen et al. 2010). Repetitive autistic traits were measured with the Autistic Interests Scale (Cloudfindings 2022a) and social autistic traits with the Literal Language Scale (Cloudfindings 2021). Big five personality traits were measured with the Short Big Five Inventory (Gerlitz & Schupp 2005). Some specific self reported demographic variables were included as well: cisgender, attracted to men, attracted to women, aromantic, asexual, born female, belief that men are oppressed, belief that women are oppressed, belief that women are superior, friends with majority men, friends with majority women, religious, and spiritual. The study had 149 participants.
Hypotheses
Additional hypotheses aimed to be tested in this study included the existence of latent diametrical dimensions of paraphilia, corresponding to taboo-conventional, dominant-submissive, and bodily-fantasy sexual interests. It was hypothesized that dominant-submissive and bodily-fantasy would be associated with sex, males being more toward the dominant and bodily side. It was also hypothesized that autism-schizotypy would associate with general paraphilia to the schizotypy side, and possibly the taboo-conventional factor with schizotypy correlating to the taboo side.
Results
Bodily disgust and disgust inversion
The bodily disgust and bodily disgust inversion factors were extracted through principal components analysis and resembled the factors from the previous study [Table 6]
Table 6
Paraphilia Factors
Four factors were extracted from the paraphilia items as in the previous study, however they were unrotated to reveal and investigate diametrical structures underpinning paraphilias [Table 7]. The factors were a general paraphilia factor, a diametric taboo-conventional factor, a diametric submission-dominance factor, and a bodily-fantasy factor, in line with the hypothesized dimensions of paraphilia in this study.
Table 7
Sexuality Factors
Factor analysis was used to extract four factors from the items measuring sociosexuality, sex drive, intimacy, and sexual disgust. The factors extracted corresponded to the traits that were intended to be measured, though there were strong cross loadings between sexual disgust and sexual restraint. [Table 8]
Table 8
Social Difficulty & Autism-Schizotypy
The social difficulty and autism-schizotypy factors were extracted from the autism and schizotypy scales through factor analysis, replicating the expected structure from previous studies. [Table 9]
Table 9
Androphilia & Gynephilia
The androphilia and gynephilia factors were extracted as in the previous study, as well as the conventional factor. [Table 10]
Table 10
Grandiose & Vulnerable Narcissism
The grandiose and vulnerable factors of narcissism were extracted from the B-PNI with factor analysis [Table 11].
Table 11
Correlations & Predictions
The factor scores obtained were used for measurement of the corresponding traits in the analyses. Factors with inverted loadings had the scores inverted to match what they intended to measure.
Hand & Foot Fetishes
As hypothesized in this paper, bodily disgust inversion significantly predicted both sexual interest in feet (r=0.17) and sexual interest in hands (r=0.31). Androphilia and gynephilia did not predict sexual interest in feet, however androphilia predicted sexual interest in hands (r=0.33). A multiple regression of bodily disgust, bodily disgust inversion, androphilia, and gynephilia on sexual interest in feet found androphilia to be an independent negative predictor (p=0.014), and bodily disgust & disgust inversion to be strong negative and positive predictors respectively.
Predictors of Paraphilia Factors
The general paraphilia factor was predicted by sex drive (r=0.53), sexual restraint (r=-0.46), bodily disgust (r=-0.66), bodily disgust inversion (r=0.25), social difficulty (r=0.25), autism-schizotypy (r=-0.22; positive correlation indicates association with autism, negative with schizotypy), androphilia (r=0.23), gynephilia (r=0.17), conventionality (r=-0.33), borderline traits (r=0.35), secondary psychopathy (r=0.31), histrionic traits (r=0.32), openness (r=0.20), conscientiousness (r=-0.16), extraversion (r=0.21), grandiose narcissism (r=0.22), self reported attraction to women (r=0.16), self reported attraction to men (r=0.22), being aromantic (r=-0.21), and being asexual (r=-0.52). It correlated with the sexual disgust factor, but insignificantly (r=-0.10), though it correlated significantly with the original sexual disgust scale used in the study (r=-0.31) - perhaps the loadings of sexual disgust items on sexual restraint are due to sexual disgust and restraint being inseparable, and the sexual disgust factor may not effectively measure sexual disgust and rather, perhaps sexually conservative beliefs independent from actual sexual disgust which is part of sexual restraint, as the factors were varimax rotated to not correlate with each other. Because of this, the original sexual disgust scale was also used in the following correlation analyses, reported if the correlation with the scale and factor differed to a notable degree.
The taboo-conventional factor (positive = more taboo, negative = more conventional) was predicted by sex drive (r=-0.25), autism-schizotypy (r=-0.25), androphilia (r=-0.36), primary psychopathy (r=0.17), and asexuality (r=0.24).
The submission-dominance factor (positive = submissive, negative = dominant) correlated with sexual restraint (r=-0.21), bodily disgust (r=0.20), bodily disgust inversion (r=-0.17), social difficulty (r=0.30), gynephilia (r=-0.33), borderline traits (r=0.26), secondary psychopathy (r=0.20), conscientiousness (r=-0.26), neuroticism (r=0.21), being non-cisgender (r=-0.26), self reported attraction to men (r=0.29), and being female (r=0.38).
The bodily-fantasy factor (positive = bodily, negative = fantasy) correlated with sexual disgust (r=0.29), bodily disgust inversion (r=0.28), histrionic personality traits (r=-0.19), and being male (r=0.18).
It was considered that the taboo factor may not show correlations accurately due to the infrequency of taboo sexual interests, so scatter plots were used for three relevant traits with the taboo factor [Figures 1-3]. It was found that at higher ends (approximately 2 standard deviations) of the taboo factor, most points were above average or high on sex drive, and average and below average on sexual restraint and sexual disgust, however there were few extreme outliers, that likely distorted the correlations. For the seven data points scoring 2 or more standard deviation above average on the taboo factor, 2 scored 1.4-2.1 SD above average on sexual disgust, two average, and three 0.55-0.95 SD below average; one scored 2.7 SD below on sex drive, one 0.6 SD below, two average, and three 0.5-1.6 above average; for sexual restraint, three scored 1-1.9 SD below average, 2 0.47-0.56 below average, and 2 0.85-1.6 above average; six of the high scorers reported attraction to both men and women, one reporting no attraction to men or women. Removal of outlier scores from these variables made the average for sexual disgust -0.38 SD below average, sex drive 0.49 SD above average, and sexual restraint 0.78 SD below average.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Predictors of Sexuality Factors
Sexual disgust was predicted by bodily disgust (r=0.24), bodily disgust inversion (r=0.34), social difficulty (r=0.17), primary psychopathy (r=0.25), agreeableness (r=-0.21), being cisgender (r=0.25), and being attracted to men (r=-0.20).
The sexual disgust scale correlated with bodily disgust (r=0.36), bodily disgust inversion (r=0.19), androphilia (r=-0.17), and being asexual (r=0.21), differentially from the sexual disgust factor.
Sex drive was predicted by bodily disgust (r=-0.37), bodily disgust inversion (r=0.33), social difficulty (r=0.27), gynephilia (r=0.38), borderline personality traits (r=0.29), histrionic personality traits (r=0.27), openness (r=0.17), grandiose narcissism (r=0.17), vulnerable narcissism (r=0.22), self reported attraction to women (r=0.22), being asexual (r=-0.43), and being female (r=-0.30).
The intimacy factor was predicted by bodily disgust inversion (r=0.26), primary psychopathy (r=-0.20), agreeableness (r=0.23), neuroticism (r=0.21), and being aromantic (r=-0.30).
Sexual restraint was predicted by bodily disgust (r=0.34), androphilia (r=-0.21), conventionality (r=0.21), histrionic personality traits (r=-0.17), extraversion (r=-0.21), self reported attraction to men (r=-0.19), and being asexual (r=0.32).
Androphilia correlated with bodily disgust (r=-0.26), bodily disgust inversion (r=0.19), neuroticism (r=0.17), self reported attraction to men (r=0.45), being asexual (r=-0.27), and being female (r=0.27).
Gynephilia correlated with bodily disgust (r=-0.32), bodily disgust inversion (r=0.17), autism-schizotypy (r=-0.17), primary psychopathy (r=0.17), being cisgender (r=0.24), self reported attraction to men (r=-0.28), self reported attraction to women (r=0.47), being asexual (r=-0.21), and being female (r=-0.34).
Conventionality was associated with social difficulty (r=-0.24), autism-schizotypy (r=0.20), borderline traits (r=-0.22), openness (r=-0.16), conscientiousness (r=0.20), being cisgender (r=0.26), attraction to women (r=-0.43), and being asexual (r=0.19).
Bodily disgust was associated with androphilia (r=-0.26), gynephilia (r=-0.31), histrionic personality traits (r=-0.22), extraversion (r=-0.28), self reported attraction to women (r=-0.26), asexuality (r=0.44), aromanticism (r=0.18), and being female (r=0.28).
Bodily disgust inversion was associated with androphilia (r=0.19), gynephilia (r=0.17), neuroticism (r=0.18), being cisgender (r=0.23), being aromantic (r=-0.19), being asexual (r=-0.44), and being female (r=-0.18).
Discussion
In the first study, the top two highest loading items on the general paraphilia (GP) factor related to explicit arousal from sexual activity that is dangerous, and sexual activity that is disgusting or socially unacceptable. This is in line with the hypothesis that paraphilia relates to an “inversion” of negative arousal into sexual arousal, danger relating to anxiety, disgusting sexual acts obviously relating to disgust. The general paraphilia factor correlated with low sexual restraint, high sex drive, and low bodily disgust in both studies, and correlated with bodily disgust inversion in the second study. It is likely that bodily disgust inversion was measured more accurately in study 2, because it included more bodily intimate scenarios and more targets for such scenarios, and it more strongly predicted bodily sexual interests, as well as sexual interest in feet and hands, which it poorly predicted in the first study. Sexual disgust correlated negatively with general paraphilia, but correlated positively with bodily sexual interests as well as bodily disgust inversion - this may reflect the need for something to be considered disgusting before it can be considered arousing, and people high in bodily disgust inversion experience greater arousal in the context of attraction and greater disgust in the context of lack of attraction. The replicable extraction of the bodily disgust inversion factor which loads similarly for both “usual”, “unusual”, and “non-sexual” bodily targets and scenarios, and its association with body-related sexual interests and overall paraphilic interests strongly supports the proposed model of paraphilia in this paper. Bodily disgust inversion associated with sex drive but not sexual restraint, and associated with the intimacy factor in study 2, and negatively with the non-committed/introverted sexuality factor in study 1, both supporting the hypothesis that the reason for bodily related interests is for the indication of intimacy where sex is likely to occur. “Normal” sexual interests had similar loadings to “abnormal” ones on the general paraphilia factor and bodily disgust inversion, supporting the continuity and shared underpinnings of “normal” and “abnormal” sexual interests.
The hypothesis that sexual interest in feet as well as hands is related to disgust inversion (rather than a “cross wiring” explanation), as well as male-typical and female-typical sexuality was supported, androphilia negatively predicting sexual interest in feet in both studies, positively predicting interest in hands as well, and bodily disgust inversion predicting sexual interest in both hands and feet (except for hands in the first study). Sexual interest in hands and feet loaded on the common bodily interests factor along with sexual interest in non-sexual bodily fluids and uncleanliness, supporting the hypothesis that bodily related interests load on a common factor underpinned by bodily disgust inversion, which correlated with bodily interests in both studies. Bodily interests were predicted by male-typical sexual orientation and being male, in line with bodily interests being more male typical, likely due to males being more oriented towards physical attractiveness than women (Furnham 2009). The unrotated bodily factor had opposite loadings with more fantasy and context related sexual interests, consistent with women having more fantasy-based sexual interests (Assiter 1988).
Dominance and submission correlated with male-typical and female-typical sexual orientation respectively, and the preference for submission as opposed to dominance was strongly predicted by being female. Neuroticism also predicted submission over dominance, consistent with the hypothesis that submission relates to arousal from fear. Dominance and masochism both appeared to be associated with a fast life history strategy in men (as indicated by relation to low sexual restraint) and women (as indicated by relation to low sexual restraint, and low stability), which emerged particularly in women.
Taboo sexual interests were not associated with factors as predicted, however extreme high scorers with outliers removed had lower sexual restraint, higher sex drive, and lower sexual disgust. The taboo factor associated with non-commitment/introverted sexuality and low plasticity in study 1, which may indicate that taboo interests may be associated with an atypical “introverted” sexuality, such as in schizoid personality disorder where individuals appear asexual but engage in paraphilic sexual fantasy (Ahktar 1987). It is possible the role of introverted sexuality distorted the effect of sex drive and sexual restraint on taboo interests, as a fantasy limited sexuality may lead to sexual restraint and low engagement in sexual behavior in practice.
The GP factor correlated with high plasticity and low stability, which are thought to correspond to dopamine and serotonin respectively (Allen & DeYoung 2017), and this carried through in the second study with the GP factor correlating with high extraversion, openness, and low conscientiousness. General paraphilia correlated with low sexual restraint and high sex drive, sexual restraint correlating with low plasticity, and sex drive with low stability, suggesting sexual unrestrained and sex drive are separate factors leading to paraphilia, through underpinnings of dopamine and (low) serotonin respectively.
Androphilia and gynephilia factors showed that attraction to men and women are separate, but correlated features which have differential effects on different aspects of sexuality. The factors were based on sex-typical traits, and correlated with self reported attraction to men and women in the expected way, showing that sexual orientation is less of a conscious preference for men or women, but instead an attraction to traits which are typical of men or women. This clarifies a cultural debate on whether homosexuality is indicated by attraction to anybody of the opposite sex or attraction to features of the opposite sex - someone who is attracted to only female-appearing men or only male-appearing women likely is not truly attracted to men or women respectively. For example, sex drive was correlated with gynephilia, but not androphilia, and sexual restraint was associated with lower sexual restraint. Androphilia being linked to sexual restraint may appear to suggest it not to relate to female-typical sexuality, as females are higher in sexual restraint, however it may instead indicate that choosing partners based on attraction is more associated with fast life history strategy, and perhaps women with slower strategies experience less attraction to men and are more likely to choose partners based on rational choice, such tendency being reflected in the “practical” attraction factor from study one.
Conclusion
Overall, the model presented in this paper is strongly supported by the evidence, with nearly all hypotheses of put forth being supported and validated.
1. Schippers et al. (2021) Exploratory factor analysis of unusual sexual interests
2. Rees (2022) Investigations into Sexual Fetishism: Examining conceptualisations, practice, personal experience, and pathology
3. Yule et al. (2014) A Validated Measure of No Sexual Attraction: The Asexuality Identification Scale
4. Webster & Bryan (2006) Sociosexual attitudes and behaviors: Why two factors are better than one
5. O’Shea et al. (2019) Further evidence for associations between short-term mating strategy
and sexual disgust
6. Thomas et al. (2020) Sex Differences in Voyeuristic and Exhibitionistic Interests: Exploring
the Mediating Roles of Sociosexuality and Sexual Compulsivity from an Evolutionary Perspective
7. Farhoudian et al. (2016) A Qualitative Study on Methamphetamine-Related Sexual High-Risk Behaviors in an Iranian Context
8. Kruger et al. (2005) Prolactinergic and dopaminergic mechanisms underlying sexual arousal and orgasm in humans
9. Cloudfindings (2024) Beyond Dopamine: Possible Neurochemical Bases of Openness To Experience and Intellect
10. Balon (2006) SSRI-associated sexual dysfunction
11. Greenberg et al. (1997) Treatment of the Paraphilic Disorders: A Review of the Role of the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
12. Kruger et al. (1998) NEUROENDOCRINE AND CARDIOVASCULAR RESPONSE TO SEXUAL AROUSAL AND ORGASM IN MEN
13. Fluitman et al. (2010) Disgust affects TNF-α, IL-6 and noradrenaline levels in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder
14. Cisler & Olatunji (2008) Towards a Causal Model for Disgust in the Anxiety Disorders: An Integration of Evidence from Neuroscience
15. Boyd & Moore (1990) Evidence for GABA involvement in stress-induced inhibition of male amphibian sexual behavior
16. Weil et al. (2009) Impact of generalized brain arousal on sexual behavior
17. Gulliford (2010) Opioid-Induced Sexual Dysfunction
18. Hlay et al. (2022) Disgust sensitivity predicts sociosexuality across cultures
19. Fisher et al. (2015) Four broad temperament dimensions: description, convergent validation correlations, and comparison with the Big Five
20. Karakoc et al. (2017) Methamphetamine-Induced Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Case Report
21. Landeros-Weisenberger et al. (2014) Dimensional predictors of response to SRI pharmacotherapy in obsessive–compulsive disorder
22. Stoet (2010). PsyToolkit - A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux.
23. Stoet (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments
24. Allen & DeYoung (2017) Personality neuroscience and the five factor model
25. Cloudfindings (2024) The Structure of Political Orientations and Underlying Psychological Causes: Part 1 - Statistical Extraction of a Psycho-Political Compass
26. Gosling et al. (2003) A very brief measure of the Big-Five Personality Domains
27. Schoenleber et al. (2016) Development of a Brief Version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory
28. Cloudfindings (2023) General Psychopathology Masks the Associations Between Psychiatric Disorders and Personality Traits
29. Zanarini et al. (2003) A screening measure for BPD: The McLean screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (MSI-BPD)
30. Levenson et al. (1995) Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population.
31. Ferguson & Negy (2014) Development of a brief screening questionnaire for histrionic personality symptoms
32. Mason et al. (2005) Short scales for measuring schizotypy.
33. Cohen et al. (2010) Toward a more psychometrically sound brief measure of schizotypal traits: introducing the SPQ-Brief Revised
34. Cloudfindings (2022a) Characterizing Repetitive Behaviors & Interests Specific to Autism: The Autistic Interests Scale
35. Cloudfindings (2021) Literal Language Scale: Development & Association With Social Intelligence
36. Gerlitz & Schupp (2005) Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten persoenlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP
37. Lee et al. (2009) Relaxation Therapy Lowers Blood Pressure More Effectively in Hypertensives with Raised Plasma Norepinephrine and Blunts Pressor Response to Anger
38. Kajonius & Johnson (2018) Sex differences in 30 facets of the five factor model of personality in the large public (N= 320,128)
39. Archer (2004) Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-World Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review
40. Kaczynski (2008) The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarchoprimitivism
41. Brody et al. (1995) Gender differences in anger and fear as a function of situational context
42. Furnham (2009) Sex differences in mate selection preferences
43. Ahktar (1987) Schizoid personality disorder: a synthesis of developmental, dynamic, and descriptive features
44. Assiter (1988) Romance fiction: Porn for women?
Comments
Post a Comment