International Journal of Impotence Research (2007) 19, 432–437 & 2007 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0955-9930/07 $30.00 www.nature.com/ijir ORIGINAL ARTICLE Relative prevalence of different fetishes C Scorolli1, S Ghirlanda1,2,3, M Enquist2,4, S Zattoni3 and EA Jannini5 1Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Italy; 2Group for Interdisciplinary Cultural Research, Stockholm University, Sweden; 3Faculty of Psychology, University of Bologna, Italy; 4Zoology Institution, Stockholm University, Sweden and 5Department of Experimental Medicine, L’Aquila University, L’Aquila, Italy The aim of this study was to estimate the relative frequency of Fetishes in a large sample of individuals. Using the Internet as a data source, we examined 381 discussion groups. We estimate, very conservatively, that at least 5000 individuals were targeted. The relative frequency of each preference category was estimated considering (a) the number of groups devoted to the category, (b) the number of individuals participating in the groups and (c) the number of messages exchanged. The three measures agree both parametrically (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.91) and non-parametrically (Kendall’s W ¼ 0.94, Po0.01). Preferences for body parts or features and for objects usually associated with the body were most common (33 and 30%, respectively), followed by preferences for other people’s behavior (18%), own behavior (7%), social behavior (7%) and objects unrelated to the body (5%). Feet and objects associated with feet were the most common target of preferences. These findings provide the first large database in an area, where the knowledge is particularly scarce. International Journal of Impotence Research (2007) 19, 432–437; doi:10.1038/sj.ijir.3901547; published online 15 February 2007 Introduction persons who have sought or have been referred to a therapist.2,4 To date, there is little theoretical under- Human sexuality is an interdisciplinary area where standing of why an object or a body part unrelated to researchers from different fields such as medicine, functional sexual activity attracts so much attention biology, psychology, sociology and anthropology as in fetishism. Although the available data may meet and, to some extent, compete to explain suggest some pathogenetic mechanisms, they are not phenomena.1–3 In particular, the expert in sexual sufficient to distinguish between inherited or en- medicine is frequently called to deal with sexual vironmental origin of fetishism. Moreover, there is symptoms, such as erectile dysfunction or ejacula- little empirical research attempting to estimate the tory disturbances, that can be directly or indirectly relative frequency of atypical sexual preferences in correlated with particular or unusual sexual inter- the general population. Here, we present such a ests. For many reasons (the private aspect of sexual research in a large, selected population of English- behavior, lack of strong theoretical models, lack of speaking internet users. funding), however, it is difficult to gather data from large samples. This is especially true for rare sexual preferences and behaviors, that are often referred as Methods ‘deviant’ or ‘bizarre’ and whose expression may be discouraged by society (in the scientific literature: Data source ‘paraphilias’, ‘variant’ or ‘atypical’ preferences). As We gathered data from public access areas of the a result, efforts to explain rare sexual preferences English-language section of Yahoo! groups, a large and behaviors have been based on data from such collections of Internet discussion groups (http:// sources as psychiatric patients, sex offenders and groups.yahoo.com). By registering with the Yahoo! service, anyone is entitled to create discussion groups on any topic, provided no copyrighted Correspondence: Professor EA Jannini, Department of material is posted and sexual or otherwise sensitive Experimental Medicine, University of L’Aquila, Via Vetoio, Bldg 2, Room A2/54, L’Aquila, AQ 67100, Italy. content is posted only to age-restricted sections of E-mail: [email protected] the site (see Yahoo!’s terms of service at http:// Received 13 June 2006; revised 30 December 2006; docs.yahoo.com/info/terms). Many groups relate to accepted 5 January 2007; published online 15 February sexuality. The material posted to a group is often 2007 reserved to group members (membership is usually Relative prevalence of different fetishes C Scorolli et al 433 granted by the group founder after applying directly not available, and six groups were discarded by the Web or by email), but the following informa- because they had no members. The groups that tion is public: passed all inclusion criteria were thus 381. The average activity in these groups totals over 4000 1. The group name. messages per month, with over 1 50 000 nominal 2. A description of the group. members. Although the latter figure is certainly 3. The number of group members. inflated, because people usually subscribe to more 4. A record of group activity (number of posted groups, it is likely that the number of individuals messages for each month since creation). targeted by our survey is, at least, of many We used this information to estimate the relative thousands. If everyone subscribed to as many as 30 frequency of sexual preferences for objects, body parts groups, for instance, we would still have informa- and behaviors, as detailed below. Through the search tion from about 5000 individuals. Usually, a study interface of Yahoo! groups, we obtained a list of 2938 of atypical sexual preferences with 100 or more 2,4 groups whose name or description text contained the participants is considered very large. word ‘fetish’. On 28 October, 2004, we downloaded the public information for these groups via a custom program (available at request). As a comparison, we Data analysis quote how many groups are retrieved using some We devised a scheme whereby a sexual preference popular sports as keywords (as of November 2005): could be assigned to one or more categories. Three football (6383); soccer (4221); basketball (3471); macroareas were devised: body, objects and beha- hockey (2724); and volleyball (1710). viors. These were further subdivided to describe, The word ‘fetish’ that we used to locate data on in broad terms preferences for (the examples in sexual preferences is utilized in everyday language parentheses come from our data): with a much broader scope than its psychiatric definition,2 and the two should not be confused. In 1. A part or feature of the body (e.g., feet or everyday usage, ‘fetish’ refers to sexually arousing overweight individuals), including body modifi- stimuli that would not meet psychiatric criteria for cations (e.g., tattoos). a diagnosis of fetishism.5 In many cases, they may 2. An object usually experienced in association with simply enhance sexual interest or satisfaction rather the body (e.g., shoes or headphones). than being necessary for it. ‘Fetish’ may also refer to 3. An object not usually associated with the body preferences for objects or activities in non-sexual (e.g., dirty dishes, candles). contexts (see below). In this study, we used ‘fetish’ 4. An event involving only inanimate objects (we merely as a convenient keyword to retrieve data found no examples). about sexual preferences through the search inter- 5. A person’s own behavior (e.g., biting fingernails). face of Yahoo! groups. Our aim was to survey sexual 6. A behavior of other persons (e.g., smoking or preferences and not clinical cases of Fetishism. fighting). 7. A behavior or situation requiring an interaction with others (e.g., domination or humiliation role play). Criteria for inclusion and sample size Starting from the 2938 groups initially retrieved, we Each group was assigned to one or more categories selected the ones relevant for our study as follows. based on its name, the accompanying description First, we identified groups that dealt with sexual text and, were available, the message subjects topics. Thus, we discarded groups that used ‘fetish’ and content. Each group was independently classi- in a non-sexual context (e.g., fetish for a rock band) fied by two researchers. Disagreements were limited as well as groups that used ‘fetish’ to deny that the to about 5% of cases (usually when more cate- group was about sex, apparently to avoid undesired gories were involved), and were resolved by sexual content being posted to the group. For discussion. We then proceeded to estimate the instance, a support group for pregnant women stated relative frequency of the different preference explicitly that the group did not discuss ‘pregnancy categories. We constructed three indices of fetish’. For some groups, the sexual nature of frequency: the topic could not be established with confidence 1. The number of groups assigned to the category. (e.g., there was no description text). Applying the 2. The total number of members of groups assigned criterion that a group should be clearly identifiable to the category. as discussing a sexual topic, we discarded from 3. The total number of messages, per month of further analysis 2161 groups. activity, exchanged in groups assigned to the Of the remaining groups, 372 were discarded category. because they discussed ‘sex’ or ‘fetishism’ generic- ally and thus could not be categorized. A further 18 The three measures were analyzed both parame- groups were excluded because the message record trically, by the Cronbach’s-a, and non-parametri- (one of our measures of frequency, see below) was cally, using the Kendall’s-W. Significance has been International Journal of Impotence Research Relative prevalence of different fetishes C Scorolli et al 434 setted at Po0.05 and a computerized program has been used for data analysis. Results The three indices of frequency (number of groups, members, messages) agreed well both in ranking the categories from most common to rarest (Kendall’s- W ¼ 0.94, Po0.01) and in estimating their relative frequency (Cronbach’s-a ¼ 0.91). About 70% of groups (273 of 381) was assigned to only one category.