6.7% of pedophiles have a cross dressing fetish. About 2% in general population. Yes, it is a red flag in a man.

submitted by GConly from (researchgate.net)

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkTwainiac 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Not sure what we can glean about the general population today from a study of 45 middle-aged convicted sex offenders who were in sex offender treatment in the 1990s.

Most pedophiles and sex offenders are never caught, and those who are caught are not necessarily convicted. Of those convicted, not all convicted sex offenders would have qualified for treatment programs in the 90s (or today). In fact, one of the things that sex offender programs revealed back then was that sex offenders used them to share tips and titillating stories. Just like prisons tend to be places where the inmates learn from one another how to commit and get away with crimes, and to game the system, sex offender programs gave offenders more ideas about how to offend in cleverer, more diverse & more depraved ways.

I suspect the number of males with paraphilias is undercounted, and that paraphilias amongst males are rising. Cross-dressing, pedophilia, autogynephilia, LARPing, infantilism, BDSM, ABDL (adult baby diaper lovers), porn addiction and a whole lot of other disturbing fetishes seem to be very much on the rise, particularly amongst those who've grown up in the era of the internet - especially since the technology changed to the point where it became possible to easily, instantly access porn videos from anywhere.

In the early phases of the internet, devices needed to be tethered to a landline & had limited capacity, speeds were slow, bandwith was limited, there was no compression for large files, screens were low resolution, etc. As a result accessing video/film footage was impossible for most people until circa 15 years ago. YouTube only began in December 2005; Pornhub in 2007.

Even if the content we're consuming is benign or even positive, my sense is that spending so much of our lives staring at screens is causing widespread brain damage & mental health problems amongst all groups (and I include myself in that assessment). But for people who start out using devices like tablets in early childhood and begin using the net & SM in middle school, the impact is even more severe coz their brains are still developing. Then when you factor in how so many people's digital diets consist of large daily doses of toxic stuff like porn, anime, gaming, make-believe, reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, misogyny, rage, bullying, so many young people don't have a chance. I think we are creating a world of mini Caligulas.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

In fact, one of the things that sex offender programs revealed back then was that sex offenders used them to share tips and titillating stories. Just like prisons tend to be places where the inmates learn from one another how to commit and get away with crimes, and to game the system, sex offender programs gave offenders more ideas about how to offend in cleverer, more diverse & more depraved ways.

Yeah, putting all the antisocial people together in groups at first seems like reasonable thing to do for logistical purposes, but... unintended consequences, eh?

my sense is that spending so much of our lives staring at screens is causing widespread brain damage & mental health problems amongst all groups

Well it's like what Jordan Peterson said during his recent Abigail Shrier interview. 'A young man today can view more naked women on his phone in the span of an hour than a man in the 1950's would see in his entire lifetime.' We just don't exactly know what those consequences are yet, as far as sexuality is concerned. But certainly all this screen time is not something that evolution has equipped us to deal with.

I suspect the number of males with paraphilias is undercounted

I've read the research... those studies have not done a good job at operationalizing. Some of it seems like perhaps activist research--"See? Everyone's a perv!" Some studies get numbers that are higher than any common sense allows for. In a way, viewing any pornographic material is voyeurism, so you can check that box off for many, many people. But there's voyeurism and then there is voyeurism, right? "Choking" is trendy, how can you tell if someone is just trying to score sexy points versus those people who really do have an interest in erotic asphyxiation. Rough 50% of US adults experiment with some variety of BDSM activity, but no sane person would say that half (or a quarter on behest of the experimental partner, etc) of the US adult population has a paraphilia, because it's obviously not true.

whole lot of other disturbing fetishes seem to be very much on the rise, particularly amongst those who've grown up in the era of the internet

I believe that Blanchard has stated that his belief in the prevalence of autogynephilia is as such: It's always been there. The internet didn't cause it. The internet, however, did allow people with this interest to find each other, congregate, socialize, etc, and here we are today.

It's a really interesting correlation/causation question wrt. Internet usage. I can devise a study for this, it's not terribly difficult, but nobody will fund it, because sexuality is so socially taboo.

Heck. Maybe it's all the novel chemicals from modern industry having fun in utero. I'd be scientifically tickled pink if we even understood the neurological fundamentals of heterosexuality, let alone SSA and paraphilias, but I've resigned myself to the very obvious--that we won't see that in my lifetime. Best we can do is recognize that sexuality has to be treated with respect and properly nurtured due to how strong of a compulsion it is in us.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I believe that Blanchard has stated that his belief in the prevalence of autogynephilia is as such: It's always been there. The internet didn't cause it. The internet, however, did allow people with this interest to find each other, congregate, socialize, etc, and here we are today.

But most of Blanchard's research was done when the internet was in its infancy and not a medium that the mass of the populace use - and definitely before the era of YT & PH.

I believe AGP has always been there too. But I also believe that AGP is becoming much more common coz of the current-day internet that has been in existence for the past 15 or so years.

The point I've tried to make is that the internet has changed dramatically since its inception. Originally, the internet was mostly text-based. So it allowed people to connect with like-minded people, share messages, ideas and so on. But if they wanted to share porn - whether drawings, photos or films/videos - they'd have to rely on using the mail or meeting in person to exchange physical objects because of the tech limitations that prevailed at the time. Drawings & photos had to be put on paper; moving pictures on film, videotape or DVDs. As for text, people couldn't transfer huge amounts of erotic literature online - they'd have to save the material to discs and send/trade them.

In addition, in the ear prior to the technology of imagery all becoming digital, there were curbs on the kinds of images that could be produced and traded by your average everyday person because film had to be physically processed. Whilst some people had their own darkrooms, or rented darkroom time, most people relied on commercial film processing companies to "develop" their photos and home movies.

With the spread of home video in the 80s and beyond, this began to change. But still, most people in the 80s & 90s still used film that required processing. This made for a very different atmosphere compared to the world since 2000, coz film processing companies had a duty to report to the authorities any images they considered to be indicative of, say, child sex abuse.

A good illustration of how different the technologies of imagery and cultural standards were in the early internet era is the 2001 movie Snap Decision, based on the true story of a single mother in Chicago USA who was arrested and prosecuted for child pornography and had her kids taken away during the Bush (I) era coz a photo processing company flagged photos of her young children running around in their diapers and splashing about in the bath as possible child sex abuse.

Another good example of how very different things were in the early era of the internet when photography was still pre-digital days is One Hour Photo starring Robin Williams as a very creepy stalker.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

But most of Blanchard's research was done when the internet was in its infancy and not a medium that the mass of the populace use - and definitely before the era of YT & PH.

This is an excellent point. But if we're on the topic of Blanchard wrt. autogynephilia, women are everywhere, not just the Internet. That's the erotic target, "there it is!" just inverted onto one's self. There's plenty in the day-to-day life of an AGP person that could engender it, Internet not required. The Internet certainly has done an excellent job of distilling down aspects of the interest into something potent. "Trans sissy-hypno is crack," but that would take us onto the very broad and nuanced topic of "sex addiction."

people couldn't transfer huge amounts of erotic literature online

Is it quantity or the nature of the material? Which holds more sway? I would also like to take a deep-dive into the assumption of what constitutes "erotic." Since what is erotic to the paraphile is not what is erotic to your average person. Material that excites the paraphile could potentially fly completely under your radar. It certainly flies under a lot of people's radars, or the T issue would have been dead in the water a long time ago. (Not that present-day transgenderism is exclusively comprised of autogynephilia, it is not, it just would have brought scrutiny to the subject. I believe naive AGP are largely responsible for where we are today--they are the major activists.) As far as the Internet is concerned, average people like stills and videos of nude, sexed bodies, and the activity of solo masturbation or partnered sex, or activities that evoke the concept. Etc. People with paraphilias are, well, they demonstrate the boundlessness of human sexuality, insofar as the ideal object choice can be an abstract idea that can never be actualized.

But dialing that back for a minute to focus on the specifics you raised, which are meaningful, because they're common. You can get paraphilias all over the place, but the fact that they seem to thematically cluster is an interesting clue as to their aetiology.

  • Cross-dressing... Can be paraphilic, or drag for instance, not that drag should never be subject to scrutiny.
  • pedophilia... it's a weird one. Stimulus comes in, should provoke avuncularity, but instead you get eroticism.
  • autogynephilia Should probably be best regarded as inverted heterosexuality. The real-world consequences are that AGP are having their way in the greater social sphere. Paraphiliacs, blind to themselves, demanding their due. "We're just like you..."
  • LARPing Yep. No doubt about it. We live in an Instagram world with look-at-me-ism.
  • infantilism/ABDL... Freud would have a field day with this. There is a sadomasochistic element to it wrt. interpersonal dominance hierarchies, and may be another outcropping of the thing labeled BDSM.
  • BDSM... The core theme seems to be interpersonal power dynamics. As a social species, it's probably not dissimilar to the miswiring with pedophilia. Stimulus comes in that should do one thing, but does another. If interpersonal power dynamics can do this vis-a-vis paraphilias, that strikes me as a fascinating social sciences topic that should be explored, because it means we're fundamentally wired up for this sort of thing, in some fashion.

How I framed those points above is that they are generally universal experiences. It's just that the normal expectation is replaced with eroticism, which should probably suffice as a working definition of paraphilia.

Irrespective of all that, I've read a few of your posts here and have thoroughly enjoyed the perspective given to you, and thus us, by your life experience. The wisdom of age. I'd like to have it out with you on some topics, but when you speak, I listen.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

if we're on the topic of Blanchard wrt. autogynephilia, women are everywhere, not just the Internet. That's the erotic target, "there it is!" just inverted onto one's self. There's plenty in the day-to-day life of an AGP person that could engender it, Internet not required.

True, the internet is not required for AGP to occur. I imagine AGP has long have existed. But that doesn't mean the internet isn't helping to inculcate and spread AGP in far wider/larger segment of the male populace than ever before - which is what I sense is now happening, though I can't prove it.

As Jordan Peterson mentioned in his interview with Abigail Shrier on YT recently, today a male can see more beautiful women - naked too - in a single afternoon online than he'd ever dream of seeing in his entire lifetime in any previous era in human history. (For people who see Jordan Peterson as an anathema who should not be watched or even mentioned, I say oh grow up!)

You say

women are everywhere

Which is true in many places on earth today. But it's not true everywhere. None of us can travel at the moment, but when COVID restrictions are lifted I suggest you visit Egypt, Pakistan and South Africa and go walking in the evening. You won't see many women on the streets. In many places on earth you won't see women even in daylight unless they are fully covered due to veiling dictates/customs.

Even in the West, it has not always been true that "women are everywhere" for male to view. For much of history, women both in the West and elsewhere were relegated to certain, circumscribed areas - home, harems, nunneries, brothels - and our job prospects were confined to field work, prostitution, domestic service, child care including wet nursing, certain kinds of factory jobs, laundries, typing pools, midwifery, nursing, teaching young children...

Lots of males in the West spent their formative and early adult years in male-only schools and universities then served in all-male militaries. After that, they went to work in mostly male workplaces. Yes, women were present here and there in such schools, unis and workplaces, usually as cleaners, laundresses, carers, secretaries and assistants. But women were far from "everywhere" in the daylight hours of the everyday lives of lots of men.

Even when women did begin to make inroads into previously all-male institutions, it took a long time for us to be "everywhere." When my father would take me to work with him in NYC's financial district/Wall Street when I was a girl in the 1960s, there were hardly any women on the trading floors, in the admin offices, or on the commuter trains and subways we took to and fro. When on those days he'd take me to lunch in historic places like Fraunces Tavern or Delmonico's, not one customer I saw was female.

When I started university at a previously all-male institution in the 1970s, there were 125 women on campus compared to more than 4000 men. None of the men I went to uni with would've agreed with you that in their world "women are everywhere."

When after uni I became a newspaper reporter, the newsrooms were 85% men. Except for the "women's page" editor, all the editorial positions were held by men. Again and again, I was in work situations where I was the only woman or one of the very few women in a sea of men.

As for paraphilias, I am confused by what you've said. If I am misreading, I apologize. But you seem to be saying that the paraphilias you list and describe

are generally universal experiences

Or they stem from experiences that are universal? Huh?

I don't agree. Maybe a case can be made that they or their precursors are universal male experiences, though I'd dicker [sic, LOL] with you on that. But I definitely don't think they can be said to be universal female experiences.

Is it quantity or the nature of the material? Which holds more sway? I would also like to take a deep-dive into the assumption of what constitutes

But in the current era, it's not just the quantity of the material that's changed! The nature of porn/erotica has changed enormously. It's really night and day.

Mainstream porn and erotica of the 20th century was far more mild and benign than the abusive, violent, degrading, blatantly misogynistic stuff that is everywhere and constitutes the norm today. The material online nowadays seems to be all about men ramming their dicks into young women's anuses and causing them to cry in pain; using their dicks to "destroy" "pussies;" shoving their dicks down young women's throats until they gag, tear up or vomit, men raping, gang raping, spitting, slapping, choking, enslaving young women, "rosebudding," bukkake - and even worse.

The pictorials in monthly periodicals Playboy, Hustler, Penthouse, Screw, Juggs and so on were of an entirely different order. Back in the day, the novels of Henry Miller and D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterly's Lover were considered obscene. Even in the 70s and 80s, Story of O was considered scandalous. When Deep Throat became the first porn flick shown in mainstream theaters in the 1970s, it was extremely controversial. Many women refused to accompany their male partners to screenings or walked out. Most women I know never even considered seeing it.

Circa 1980, I wrote a magazine article about porn in the USA - which was just then beginning to burgeon, and feminists were criticizing and protesting - and in the process I went to peep shows and porn shops and viewed a fair amount of literature. I was appalled at the new material that was then emerging that was increasingly violent and degrading towards women. But that stuff was mild compared to everyday porn that can be accessed today. This afternoon I was talking about this with a friend of mine who is about my age, and we joked that compared to what today's porn makers/vendors are putting out, porn purveyors of the 20th century like Hugh Hefner, Al Goldstein and Larry Flynt seem to be almost feminists. Coz at least they wanted female people to experience pleasure. Whereas the point of today's porn seems to be to cause female people pain, humiliation and degradation.

I've read a few of your posts here and have thoroughly enjoyed the perspective given to you, and thus us, by your life experience. The wisdom of age. I'd like to have it out with you on some topics, but when you speak, I listen.

You are so kind! I don't expect you or anyone else to agree with me. I'm just sharing info and perspectives I've picked up along the way...

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

In many places on earth you won't see women even in daylight unless they are fully covered due to veiling dictates/customs.

Hadn't considered anything beyond my modern Western perspective, honestly. Hm. I'm going to have to think about that. It's interesting when we look at female humans who have hidden estrus, where our lesser, mammalian neighbors overwhelmingly give off very specific indications when it's time. I'm guessing this is one of the reasons why human sexuality can go so far off the rails. It moves away from such a simple stimulus and response. It also means sexual desire has to be, generally speaking, omnipresent in human males. But when you take the stimulus that heterosexual men are evolutionary left with--woman, and clad them in disguising garb--they're not left with much. Where exactly is this omnipresent desire directed?

But women were far from "everywhere" in the daylight hours of the everyday lives of lots of men.

Yet the race propagated itself. Perhaps I should not have said "everywhere." What I was trying to indicate is that the overwhelming majority of the population was likely to encounter a woman at least once a week.

I definitely don't think [paraphilias] can be said to be universal female experiences.

Well they're probably more prevalent and varied in men, which isn't to say they're universal in men, but I wouldn't go so far to say that women can never have them, that would contradict plenty of case reports, at the very least. I'm not anywhere close to being satisfied with the quality and quantity of research being done on them. I think it's important, from many perspectives, to understand them.

Whereas the point of today's porn seems to be to cause female people pain, humiliation and degradation.

While I'm certainly aware of the list of things you indicated above, (except "rosebudding"--learned that today while reading a different forum tracking the Aimee Challenor subject. Wish I could unsee that, but my scientific mind is going to be churning for a while on how anyone could find that appealing,) I just sauntered over to (NSFW) pornhub.com at the behest of replying to this. In terms of recent popular content, it's bereft of those things. Does not exactly focus on female agency or pleasure, but it's not sadomasochistic by any stretch of the imagination. Pain, humiliation, and degradation is basically the textbook definition of sadomasochism. If all the material was that, then I could certainly see how you might come to the conclusion that paraphilias are universal male experiences. (Perhaps this is due to the recent "purge" that transpired at the behest of credit card processors.) I never saw that material pop up in Reddit's /r/all (and they also quietly removed any NSFW subreddits from that feed very recently.) https://subredditstats.com/ has some good statistics made readily available, but again, nothing popular strikes me as being in the SM category. The popular content is very basic. Certainly I can find that material on both of those websites, but it seems I have to go "out of my way" to find it. Which is why I think that your circa 1980's perception of what was around then might be a little skewed. I've held in my hands crumbling circulations from that era that were directed at a sadomasochistic audience, including large sections dedicated to personal adverts, as well as having done some research into the sexual behavior of the Weimar Republic, particularly what transpired in Berlin. They got up to stuff. Still do. Sexual excesses do seem to predate the upheaval of nations, as noted by Camille Paglia.

I am concerned however that young people will see that sort of material, that very much does exist, and wrongly think "this must be what sex is," and want no part of that. I've seen this cited in some anecdotes of FTM transition. There's no contextualization of pornography. And many other exceptions I take with it. (I'd also note that the inverse is true, there is pornography with men being the subjects of pain, humiliation, and degradation, but it is still designed for a male audience. And I'm certainly aware of the content that humiliates via way of emasculation and feminization, gee, tell us what you really think of women. Still trying to wrap my head around that one.)

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Your admission that you

Hadn't considered anything beyond my modern Western perspective, honestly. Hm.

Is reflective of one of the problems in these convos. Did you really not study history in school or ever have any interest in time periods prior to you own? You never studied or had an interest in geography, anthropology, comparative religions, foreign cultures and politics?

In your own geographic area, you never knew anyone with decidedly different customs and beliefs? You never went to a China town, a Little Italy, as Korea town, a Shabbat candle lighting, a kielbasa festival, a Kwanza celebration, a sushi restaurant, a St Patrick's day, a seder, a Mass, a baptism, a Brazilian carnivale, an orthodox synagogue, a mosque, a sikh temple, an Eid-al-fitr at the end Ramadam, a concert put on by Tibetan Buddhist monks? And so on...

I know since COVID reared its head in late 2019/early 2020, global travel has pretty much stopped. But prior to then, you never travelled or thought of travelling abroad?

I don't mean to be critical of you personally. It's just that I don't understand the blinkered perspective you've admitted you have that is only cognizant of your own culture/experience and time period. I grew up with an entirely different views. Loved history and couldn't get enough of different cultures and viewpoints.

I just sauntered over to (NSFW) pornhub.com at the behest of replying to this. In terms of recent popular content, it's bereft of those things.

I don't think you know how the internet works.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well on the topic of my modern Western perspective, you're taking me a little bit too literally. On all the topics of which you brought up, I would mark myself generally better than my peers, perhaps lesser on the foreign culture, however. That's true. Comparative religion, yes. I'm especially familiar with pre-Socratic Greek traditions, and am educated in analysis of Abrahamic text and am fond of all things antediluvian. On the topic of geography, it is one of my BA's. Politics is my sports.

That all being said, I'm not necessarily going to plug every single perspective I have into a saidit discussion. That's the point.

I don't think you know how the internet works.

In a technological sense, I know a great deal how it works, but I know that's not what you meant. Elaborate?

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

I think so too. My childhood free time was outside, or playing imaginative games, including board games and with dolls, blocks, Lego - creating physical worlds for them. Riding bikes, hiking, exploring with friends, building forts. Cowboys & Indians, or Lost in Space. Reading books. Most of my friends' parents limited TV time too, so we read.

But these kids now, online all the time, in an artificial world, so anxious as to how they will be perceived, no safe space away from bullies and desperate to make themselves interesting. No exercise, much less physical interaction with friends. Just beyond sad.

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

Other:

Many people who suffer from one paraphilia have more than one. For example, about one-third of pedophiles also have another paraphilia. More than half engage in three or four such kinds of behaviors rather than just one.

Thinking of Chanellor here.

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

Challenor is amazing. There's no reason to suggest that a person can't have as many paraphilias as they damn well please, ala Hickam's dictum: "A man can have as many diseases as he damn well pleases."

Challenor:

  • Infantalism
  • Masochism
  • Autogynephilia

And at least adjacent to people who are this way (and like-minded people tend to hang out with each other:)

  • Anthromorphozoophilia (furry)
  • Autoanthromorphozoophilia (furry)
  • Some chronophilia, probably pedophilia

[–]jet199 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Aimee is definitely a furry himself.

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

So it's a cohort of people who have offended and were DSM-IV classified as pedophilic. So pedophilic offenders. N=1 current at 6.7% and N=1 of lifetime at 2.2% for fetishtic transvestism. With a (mean) age of onset at 49.

Meh?

What is obvious is that I wouldn't wish any of this shit on my worst enemy. It's not a happy picture they're painting.