The Behavioral View of Paraphilias
The learning theorists, too, have wrestled with the problem of erotic attachment. The most common account is Pavlovian. Recall the case of Leo, whose foot fetish began when, as a seven-year-old, his half sister's slipper touched his penis. The conditioned stimulus (CS) here is the sight of the slipper. It is paired with the unconditioned stimulus (US) of genital stimulation
and the unconditioned response (UR) of sexual pleasure. As a result,
future slippers come to produce the conditioned response (CR) of sexual
arousal. Such an account explains how cathexis might occur to odd objects
in childhood, and it supplements the Freudian account by providing a
mechanism.
But this account leaves unanswered the question:
Why do paraphilias persist?
Recall that the Pavlovian account of phobias had the same problem.
Once a conditioned stimulus has been paired
with an unconditioned stimulus, it usually extinguishes readily when it
occurs without the original unconditioned stimulus. When the shoe no
longer signals that his sister will touch his penis, Leo should once again
come to find shoes uninteresting-just as the dog, who used to have the
clicking sound paired with food but who no longer experiences food following
the clicking, will stop salivating to the click.
To explain the persistence of phobias, we could make the following argument:
once the phobic object became fearful, it was avoided so completely that the phobic never found out
that the phobic object was no longer paired with the original trauma.
The phobic object remained frightening because it was untested behind its protective
wall. But the paraphilic does not avoid the newly erotic object. On
the contrary, he continues to seek it, embraces it, fantasizes about it, and he
masturbates to it.
This latter fact explains the persistence of the paraphilia, once conditioned.
Once the fetishistic object has been paired with erotic stimulation
and the paraphilic masturbates in the presence of the fantasy of the object or
in the presence of the very object itself, he may provide himself with additional
Pavlovian conditioning trials, thereby greatly strengthening the connection
between the object and the unconditioned response of sexual
pleasure. So an adolescent who experienced the sight of panties originally
paired with sexual teasing by the girl next door may greatly strengthen his
attachment to panties when he masturbates to orgasm while fantasizing
about panties (McGuire, Carlisle, and Young, 1965; Storms, 1981).
There is a bit of laboratory evidence to supplement the case histories,
which suggests that Pavlovian conditioning may be at the origin ofparaphilias.
S. J. Rachman and Ray Hodgson of Maudsley Hospital, University of
London, attempted to condition a fetish. Pictures of boots (CS) were paired
in time with pictures of naked women (US)-the latter causing their male
subjects to have erections (UR). After several dozen pairings, the pictures of
the boots (CS) themselves caused erections (CR). So a previously neutral
object became erotic following Pavlovian sexual conditioning. But the
erotic arousal to boots quickly extinguished when boots were no longer followed
by the pornographic pictures-in all but one of the six subjects. Perhaps
if the subjects had repeatedly masturbated to boots in fantasy the fetish
might have resisted extinction (Rachman and Hodgson, 1968).
There is another factor, preparedness, which was brought up in explaining
phobias and which might also help to account for the irrationality and resistance
to extinction of fetishes. Phobias are not arbitrary-only several
dozen human phobias exist. There are no lamb phobias, no
tree phobias. Evolution seems to have allowed only a certain class of objects
that were actually dangerous at one time or another in evolutionary history
to become potentially phobic. A parallel argument may hold for fetishes.
There are a limited set of objects that actually become paraphilic. Why are
fetishes about parts of the body and about dominance and submission
common, but fetishes about windows, pillows, or yellow walls nonexistent
despite the fact that such objects are often paired with sexual stimulation in
childhood? If there are a special class of objects that are prepared to take on
an erotic character once they have been paired with unconditioned sexual
stimuli-then the other properties of preparedness should follow. Such objects,
once conditioned, should be irrational, robust, and learned about
readily. These facts describe both the paraphilias and phobias.
Thus, both psychodynamic thinking and learning theory may contribute
to the explanation of paraphilias. Pairing of certain objects with actual sexual
stimulation in childhood eroticizes these objects. They can be described
as "cathected" because they are irrational and they resist extinction. The
process by which they become cathected may be explained by Pavlovian
conditioning, in which a prepared object is paired with an erotic object.
Paraphilias and normal sexual object choices will resist extinction because
fantasies (CS) about them are paired repeatedly with sexual arousal and orgasm (US)
produced by masturbation and by wet dreams.
Such an account of cathexis is compatible with the
undoing-or therapy-for the paraphilias, to which we now turn.
and the unconditioned response (UR) of sexual pleasure. As a result,
future slippers come to produce the conditioned response (CR) of sexual
arousal. Such an account explains how cathexis might occur to odd objects
in childhood, and it supplements the Freudian account by providing a
mechanism.
But this account leaves unanswered the question:
Why do paraphilias persist?
Recall that the Pavlovian account of phobias had the same problem.
Once a conditioned stimulus has been paired
with an unconditioned stimulus, it usually extinguishes readily when it
occurs without the original unconditioned stimulus. When the shoe no
longer signals that his sister will touch his penis, Leo should once again
come to find shoes uninteresting-just as the dog, who used to have the
clicking sound paired with food but who no longer experiences food following
the clicking, will stop salivating to the click.
To explain the persistence of phobias, we could make the following argument:
once the phobic object became fearful, it was avoided so completely that the phobic never found out
that the phobic object was no longer paired with the original trauma.
The phobic object remained frightening because it was untested behind its protective
wall. But the paraphilic does not avoid the newly erotic object. On
the contrary, he continues to seek it, embraces it, fantasizes about it, and he
masturbates to it.
This latter fact explains the persistence of the paraphilia, once conditioned.
Once the fetishistic object has been paired with erotic stimulation
and the paraphilic masturbates in the presence of the fantasy of the object or
in the presence of the very object itself, he may provide himself with additional
Pavlovian conditioning trials, thereby greatly strengthening the connection
between the object and the unconditioned response of sexual
pleasure. So an adolescent who experienced the sight of panties originally
paired with sexual teasing by the girl next door may greatly strengthen his
attachment to panties when he masturbates to orgasm while fantasizing
about panties (McGuire, Carlisle, and Young, 1965; Storms, 1981).
There is a bit of laboratory evidence to supplement the case histories,
which suggests that Pavlovian conditioning may be at the origin ofparaphilias.
S. J. Rachman and Ray Hodgson of Maudsley Hospital, University of
London, attempted to condition a fetish. Pictures of boots (CS) were paired
in time with pictures of naked women (US)-the latter causing their male
subjects to have erections (UR). After several dozen pairings, the pictures of
the boots (CS) themselves caused erections (CR). So a previously neutral
object became erotic following Pavlovian sexual conditioning. But the
erotic arousal to boots quickly extinguished when boots were no longer followed
by the pornographic pictures-in all but one of the six subjects. Perhaps
if the subjects had repeatedly masturbated to boots in fantasy the fetish
might have resisted extinction (Rachman and Hodgson, 1968).
There is another factor, preparedness, which was brought up in explaining
phobias and which might also help to account for the irrationality and resistance
to extinction of fetishes. Phobias are not arbitrary-only several
dozen human phobias exist. There are no lamb phobias, no
tree phobias. Evolution seems to have allowed only a certain class of objects
that were actually dangerous at one time or another in evolutionary history
to become potentially phobic. A parallel argument may hold for fetishes.
There are a limited set of objects that actually become paraphilic. Why are
fetishes about parts of the body and about dominance and submission
common, but fetishes about windows, pillows, or yellow walls nonexistent
despite the fact that such objects are often paired with sexual stimulation in
childhood? If there are a special class of objects that are prepared to take on
an erotic character once they have been paired with unconditioned sexual
stimuli-then the other properties of preparedness should follow. Such objects,
once conditioned, should be irrational, robust, and learned about
readily. These facts describe both the paraphilias and phobias.
Thus, both psychodynamic thinking and learning theory may contribute
to the explanation of paraphilias. Pairing of certain objects with actual sexual
stimulation in childhood eroticizes these objects. They can be described
as "cathected" because they are irrational and they resist extinction. The
process by which they become cathected may be explained by Pavlovian
conditioning, in which a prepared object is paired with an erotic object.
Paraphilias and normal sexual object choices will resist extinction because
fantasies (CS) about them are paired repeatedly with sexual arousal and orgasm (US)
produced by masturbation and by wet dreams.
Such an account of cathexis is compatible with the
undoing-or therapy-for the paraphilias, to which we now turn.
IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR sex or Love Addiction TREATMENT COUNSELING OR THERAPY anywhere in the world...KEEP READING here!
http://sexual-addiction-counseling.weebly.com
Of course you know the sex addiction treatment method I recommend click here!
http://theliberatormethod.com/Welcome.html
http://sexual-addiction-counseling.weebly.com
Of course you know the sex addiction treatment method I recommend click here!
http://theliberatormethod.com/Welcome.html