3 1 An Overview of Sexual Deviance and Paraphilic Disorders Leam A. Craig1 and Ross M. Bartels2 1 Forensic Psychology Practice Ltd, The Willows Clinic, Sutton Coldfield, UK, Centre for Applied Psychology, University of Birmingham, UK School of Social Sciences, Birmingham City University, UK School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, UK 2 School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, UK Introduction Paraphilias (parəˈfiliə from Greek philos, loving) are difficult to define, contentious as a basis for legal processes, and their classification is prone to criticism. In the purist sense of the word, para—going beside or beyond, amiss; philia—attachment, is typically defined as a condition characterized by abnormal sexual desires, typically involving extreme or dangerous activities (Collins English Dictionary, 2018). According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. (DSM-5: APA, 2013), a sexual fantasy (SF) is paraphilic if it concerns activities outside the realm of “genital stimulation or preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners” (normophilic). Intensity of the para- philic SF is also “greater than or equal to normophilic interests.” In the DSM-5, paraphilias are distinct from paraphilic disorders. A paraphilic disorder denotes a paraphilia that is accompanied by distress or impairment in functioning. This indi- cates that paraphilias are necessary but not sufficient for determining the presence of a para- philic disorder. According to the DSM-5, a sexual interest is anomalous if its intensity is equal or superior to that of a “normophilic” sexual interest. Eight paraphilias are specifically listed in the DSM-5: pedophilia (prepubescent children), exhibitionism (exposing the genitals to an unsuspecting stranger), voyeurism (spying on unsuspecting strangers in normally private activities), sexual sadism (inflicting humiliation, bondage, or suffering), sexual masochism (experiencing humiliation, bondage, or suffering real or not, physical or not), frotteurism (touching/rubbing against an non-consenting person), fetishism (non-sexual object), and transvestism (cross- dressing). While each paraphilic disorder in this list has its own specific diagnostic criteria, there is an acknowledgment by the American Psychiatric Association (2013) that the list is not exhaustive. Prevalence rates for paraphilias are difficult to obtain due to changes in criterion over time (Joyal, 2021, chap. 6 COPYRIGHTEDin this book) and between cultures MATERIAL (Bhugra et al., 2010). In a sample of 1,915 German men aged between 40 and 79, Ahlers et al. (2011) reported that 62.4% reported at least one paraphilia-associated sexual arousal pattern, and that this caused distress in only 1.7% of cases (Ahlers et al., 2011). A general interest in paraphilia is not uncommon within non-offending populations. For example, Joyal and Carpenter (2017) found that nearly 50% of non-offending adults expressed an interest in at least one paraphilic category, with approximately one-third having experience with such a practice at least once. Makanjuola et al. (2008) found that between 22% and 44% of men and women admitted to at least one paraphilic interest, while Bártová et al. (2020) found that 31.3% of men and 13.6% of women reported at least one paraphilic interest. Paraphilic sexual fantasies are also common among college students (Leitenberg & Henning, 1995). For Sexual Deviance: Understanding and Managing Deviant Sexual Interests and Paraphilic Disorders, First Edition. Edited by Leam A. Craig and Ross M. Bartels. © 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2021 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. c01.indd 3 04-03-2021 17:28:14 4 1 An Overview of Sexual Deviance and Paraphilic Disorders example, Williams et al. (2009) found that 95% of their male college sample reported at least one paraphilic or offense-related sexual fantasy. Within non-offending samples, an interest in voy- eurism, fetishism, frotteurism, sadism and masochism are most common (Ahlers et al., 2011; Bártová et al., 2020; Joyal & Carpenter, 2017; Leitenberg & Henning, 1995; Williams et al., 2009). Survey results from Långström and Seto (2006) sample of Swedish adults (N = 2433) revealed a lifetime prevalence of 3.1% for exhibitionistic behavior (4.1% for males and 2.1% for females), broadly consistent with the DSM-5’s prevalence estimate of exhibitionistic disorder, which range between 2 and 4% in the general population (APA, 2013). Also, 8% of their Swedish sample admitted to being sexually aroused by spying on others having sex (Långström & Seto, 2006). While exhibitionistic and voyeuristic acts have been identified as sexually deviant behav- iors for centuries, the research on these disorders is scarce. Kaylor and Jeglic (2021, chap. 11 in this book) note that exhibitionistic and voyeuristic behaviors frequently occur together, as well as with other mental health issues, such as depression, substance use, anxiety, hypersexuality, bipolar disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. A number of theories have been posited to explain paraphilic interests, including Courtship Disorder Hypothesis, Psychoanalytic Theory, Evolutionary Theory, Behavioral and Social Learning Theory, as well as increased availability with developments in technology. Of these various theories, Kaylor and Jeglic note that the Courtship Disorder model is favored in the field as it explains the high comorbidity rates amongst sexual paraphilias, as well as the escala- tion toward more serious sexual offending behavior. This hypothesis posits that deviant sexual behavior follows the template of normal dating behaviors, such as visually selecting a partner (voyeuristic behavior), nonphysical interactions (exhibitionistic behavior), physical touching (toucherism/frottuerism), and intercourse (rape). Fantasies involving masochistic or sadistic content are more atypical, in that they are reported to be experienced by fewer people, although not so infrequently that they may be called rare (16–19% and 9–22% respectively). In fact, the prevalence rates of men who self-identify as BDSM practitioners vary between 2.2% and 7.6% (De Neef et al., 2019). Most people with atypical sexual interests do not have a mental disorder, and thus a paraphilic disorder, where a mental disorder is defined by DSM-5 as: A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotional regulation, or behaviour that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological or developmental processes underlying mental func- tioning. Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational or other important activities. An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder, socially deviant behaviour (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual as described above. (p. 20) To be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder, DSM-5 requires that people with these interests: feel personal distress about their interest, not merely distress resulting from society’s disap- proval; or have a sexual desire or behavior that involves another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death, or a desire for sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal consent. However, critics have argued that the current criteria for paraphilia are too inclusive, with the crucial difference being the intensity of a sexual fantasy, which must be greater or equal than that of “normophilia.” c01.indd 4 04-03-2021 17:28:14 Theory of Sexual Deviance and Paraphilias 5 Miner and Munn (2021, chap. 17 in this book) highlight that compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) presents even more definitional problems. Indeed, it has been described as “sexual addiction” (Carnes, 1983), “compulsive sexual behavior” (Coleman, 1991), “paraphilia related disorder” (Kafka & Hennen, 1999), “hypersexual disorder” (Kafka, 2010), and “out of control sexual behavior” (Braun-Harvey & Vigorito, 2015). Common across these various descriptors is hypersexual behavior, which has been linked to sexual recidivism (Thornton, 2021, chap. 16 in this book). If a person denies distress in the form of guilt, shame, or anxiety about their paraphilic impulses; are not impaired in important areas of their functioning due to this interest; and their urges are not acted upon, then they would not meet criteria for a paraphilic disorder (APA, 2013). Diagnostic systems in determining the presence of a paraphilic disorder are not without controversy and the DSM-5, in particular, has been criticized for lacking specificity. This includes an unclear definitional strategy for each paraphilia, whether paraphilias should be construed as categorical or dimensional, whether each paraphilia is properly subtyped, and whether the paraphilias are natural kinds or social constructions. These are but four of the 25 critical points regarding the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria (O’Donohue, 2016). This is demon- strated in a study by Joyal (2015). Using a general community sample (N = 1,501), Joyal (2015) found that the most intense “normophilic” sexual fantasy (receiving oral sex) is statistically more intense, on average, than the most intense “paraphilic” sexual fantasy. However,