
Many ‘abnormal’ sexual tastes are neither rare nor unusual, study finds - ilamont
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/most-abnormal-sexual-tastes-are-neither-rare-or-unusual-says-study/article29141804/
======
potisje
The article:

Joyal, C. C., & Carpentier, J. (2016). The Prevalence of Paraphilic Interests
and Behaviors in the General Population: A Provincial Survey. The Journal of
Sex Research, 0(0), 1–11.
[http://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1139034](http://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1139034)

Its abstract:

Paraphilic sexual interests are defined as unusual or anomalous, but their
actual occurrence in nonclinical samples is still unknown. This study looked
at desire for and experience of paraphilic behaviors in a sample of adult men
and women in the general population. A secondary goal was to compare the
results of two survey modes—traditional landline telephone versus online. A
total of 1,040 persons classified according to age, gender, education, ethnic
background, religious beliefs, area of residency, and corresponding to the
norm for the province of Quebec were interviewed. Nearly half of this sample
expressed interest in at least one paraphilic category, and approximately one-
third had had experience with such a practice at least once. Voyeurism,
fetishism, frotteurism, and masochism interested both male and female
respondents at levels above what is usually considered to be statistically
unusual (15.9%). Interestingly, levels of interest in fetishism and masochism
were not significantly different for men and women. Masochism was
significantly linked with higher satisfaction with one’s own sexual life. As
expected, the online mode generated more acknowledgment of paraphilic interest
than the telephone mode. These results call into question the current
definition of normal (normophilic) versus anomalous (paraphilic) sexual
behaviors.

~~~
potisje
A merge of the most interesting tables (D = desire, E = experience, * =
significant difference from the other group (men vs. women, internet vs.
phone)):

    
    
                               D (overall) D (men) D (women) E (overall) E (men) E (women) E (internet) E (telephone)
      Voyeurism                46.3        60.0*   34.7      34.5        50.3*   21.2      38.3*        30.4
      Fetishism                44.5        40.4    47.9      26.3        30.1    23.2      31.5*        20.8
      Exhibitionism (extended) 30.6        35.0    26.9      30.9        32.6    29.4      37.0*        24.2
      Frotteurism              26.7        34.2*   20.7      26.1        32.4*   20.5      32.2*        19.2
      Masochism                23.8        19.2    27.8*     19.2        13.9    23.7*     23.9*        14.2
      Sadism                   7.1         9.5     5.1       5.5         7.4     3.9       6.3          4.6
      Transvestism             6.3         7.2     5.5       4.9         6.5     3.5       5.7          4.0
      Exhibitionism (strict)   4.5         5.9     3.4       5.0         7.8*    2.7       5.2          4.7
      Sex with child           0.6         1.1     0.2       0.4         0.6     0.2       0.7          0
      Others                   NA          NA      NA        3.6         4.8     2.5       5.9*         1.0

~~~
tzs
For most of those, D > E, which is what I would expect. There are only two
exceptions.

For women E(extended exhibitionism) > D(extended exhibitionism), and for men
E(strict exhibitionism) > D(strict exhibitionism).

What are extended exhibitionism and strict exhibitionism, and why do more
people experience these than desire to?

~~~
justifier
from the paper..

they fail to explicitly define strict, but it is implied from the survey
question:

    
    
        4. Exhibitionism: “Have you ever been sexually
        aroused by showing your genitals to a stranger who
        was not expecting this?”;
    

but the paper does explicitly define extended:

    
    
        An additional item—“extended exhibitionism (couple)
        which refers to having sex with a partner in front 
        of other people or where you are at risk of being
        seen
    

so i think you can get from this that strict implies solo, and extended
implies multiple participants

which draws a clear line as to why more experience than desire: fulfilling a
fantasy of at least one less than the number of the participants

------
cubano
This has been known since the Kinsey Reports (1948 and 1953) literally and
figuratively blew the covers off bedroom shenanigans, so I am not sure what is
new here to see.

Of course, back then there was a predictable pushback by Evangelicals all over
the world against the surveys, and that pushback had significant effects in
keeping the information taboo.

~~~
kafkaesq
Well, Kinsey's sampling methods were highly... unorthodox, to say the least.
Which drew severe criticism to his findings, in subsequent decades.

So I think the purpose of this study was to show (at least some of) Kinsey's
findings are ballpark-reproducible, under controlled conditions.

------
nimos
"However, Joyal also noted there is a bias in the findings; since many people
refused to participate in the study, those who agreed might be more likely to
have a predilection for, um, naughty behaviours. In short, they might have
surveyed a lot of braggers."

[http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/10/quebecers-may-be-a-
bit-...](http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/10/quebecers-may-be-a-bit-more-
kinky-says-new-study)

~~~
potisje
Why wouldn't it be the other way around? It seems plausible to me that those
who aren't open about their paraphilias would also respond with a "Thanks but
no thanks" when a research assistant calls them to inquire about his abnormal
sexuality.

------
JulianMorrison
Exhibitionism and voyeurism are not illegal when it's fully consensual.
There's plenty of people who like to show off, and to watch. Just saying.

Also BDSM is its own subculture. There may be a munch near you. Go forth and
have fun.

~~~
mc32
I think that depends on context. Exhibitionism in public is likely not legal
in many jurisdictions and the same for voyeourism. If people know you're
watching and are consenting it's not quite voyeurism.

------
JoeAltmaier
They don't distinguish from "normal for a healthy human" and "normal for
people in Quebec". E.g. If everybody in America is obese, is obesity the new
'normal'? What value is there in that definition?

Don't get me wrong, enjoy whatever you like. But lets understand that humans
living in crowded cities may lead us to tastes that our forebears would have
found puzzling. That these new tastes may be diagnostic of how our mental
processes were formed? Thus still useful measures of our mental health.

~~~
neon_skies
Except that the paper is referring to the province of Quebec, not Quebec
City...

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Almost everybody lives in cities. And, as usual, this survey was of people who
have phones and were at home at the time of the survey. SO, middle-class and
probably older. If we want to start splitting hairs.

------
michaelsbradley
“While some paraphilic behaviours, such as pedophilia, exhibitionism and
voyeurism, are illegal and involve a non-consensual party, certain others
should not be labelled abnormal, says the study’s co-author, Christian
Joyal... ‘If people are happy, if everybody is consenting, I don’t know why it
should be abnormal, especially in 2016,’ Joyal says.”

In other words the co-author either has no grasp of, and/or little regard for,
distinctions considered important by many people across many centuries: moral
object versus moral subject, intention, and circumstances. See the essay
_Intrinsic Evil and the Moral Object_ [+] for an overview.

In pointing that out, I don’t mean to denigrate the researchers’ persons or
work. But the co-author’s “I don’t know why...” comment jumped out at me; I
don’t think it was a rhetorical statement. Indeed, in many conversations I’ve
had in recent years and in my daily reading, I sense a vast and accelerating
cultural ignorance related to basic moral philosophy, especially among STEM
folk. That’s quite a different thing than holding fast to or proposing a
conflicting set of reasoned ideas. Now, discussing-debating the details is
somewhat out of scope for HN – and I’m not attempting to get that snowball
rolling down hill – but ignorance of this variety ultimately leads to
dismissive attitudes and mental caricatures of those with whom we disagree,
paving the way for “justified” incivility. I think we can and should do
better.

[+] [http://www.catechism.cc/articles/moral-
object.htm](http://www.catechism.cc/articles/moral-object.htm)

------
oldmanjay
Monogamous missionary in the context of matrimony is quickly becoming
paraphillia. Those poor Christian soldiers (et al) lost the war on pleasure,
they just haven't accepted it.

------
celticninja
is it in part due to the fact that as we have a rising population then rare or
quirky kinks are now held by a greater number of people and are therefore more
commonplace, in addtion the internet helps bring people together so people
have access to a community of like minded folk and further people are less
likely to be worried about talking about it so are more open to discussing it
and making others aware.

~~~
valhalla
That's more correlation than causation. I'd imagine it's because in 2016, it's
socially acceptable to be a bit "kinky" so more people are willing to be open
and honest about it. When researchers ask people about their sexual tastes,
there's less incentive to lie since there's less of a stigma about it.

------
logfromblammo
Researchers could have saved themselves a whole lot of effort just by
connecting to the Internet for a few minutes and reading the
"rules"\--particularly 34, 35, 36, and 46.

Combine that with the theory that only 1% of any online community actively
participates or contributes to it. It's like counting mice or roaches. For
every one you can see, there are many others that you can't.

------
adrianN
The porn industry must have known about this for years.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Well, you do have to account for the difference between enjoying watching or
reading something and wanting to actually do that thing. That's a real
difference.

For instance, most people who enjoy murder mysteries or horror movies wouldn't
want to be involved in a real life murder or zombie apocalypse.

I like historical novels about the Age of Sail, but that doesn't mean I want
to actually have scurvy, and certainly don't want to have people firing
cannons at me. :-)

