| 2nd draft of 3rd paper |
[Nov. 16th, 2006|07:29 am] |
A man lights a fire in the fire place, from the mere sound and smell of the burning wood he is sexually aroused, turned on to a point others can only reach through actual intercourse. Pyrophilia, or a fire fetish, is one of the more harmless in a long list of bizarre fetishes. Not all paraphilias, translated loosely as “beyond sex” (***), are quite so safe and innocent. For example, haematophilia, a sexual attraction to or involving blood, may lead a person to cut his/herself or his/her partner in order to get aroused (***). Another, more extreme, example is that of lust murders, or deriving sexual pleaser from taking another’s life (***). With such extreme negative results, what would lead someone to act on these sexual desires? Or more relevantly, where do these fantasies and fetishes originate from? Are the genes of a person to be blamed, or does the guilt lay in the upbringing? The nature versus nurture debate has been argued for centuries, applying to a wide variety of fields of research, sexology is no exception.
The field of sexology is a relatively new field in comparison to many others, dating back only a hundred years or so. Many developmental psychologists have touched on the subject of sexuality in adolescence, if for no other reason then to cover development in its entirety. It was not until Richard von Krafft-Ebing, in the second half of the 19th century, that the modern and respectable field of sexology emerged (***). Krafft-Ebing was interested in the origins of sexual disorders, more specifically the harmful paraphilias such as rape or pedophilia. His original theory was based on a strictly hereditary and genetic standpoint, claiming that these kinds of disorders were inborn. He remained strong and unopposed in his beliefs until a man named Alfred Binet rouse up in opposition with his theory of acquired learning on the topic of sexual fetishes. Due to Binet, Krafft-Ebing was forced to reconsider his own beliefs, claiming then that sexual disorders were due to learning, but only in individuals who had the right hereditary background (***). A little under a hundred years later a sexologist by the name of John Money came up with the theory of imprinting in the way of paraphilias; much like language is imprinted, with nearly the same critical periods in its development (***). Krafft-Ebing believed in the nature effect on the formation of paraphilias, Binet in the nurture; Money wrapped the two together in such a way that is neither wholly nature nor wholly nurture.
Richard von Krafft-Ebing is credited with bringing the study of sex into the scope of medical practice, termed sexology. Starting his research in the late 19th century and early 20th century, he focused primarily on the identification of peoples with sexual disorders of forensic applications. He soon redirected his studies to deal more with the origins of sexual disorders in general. His belief in the importance of nature over the impact of nurture was relatively strong at first, and it remained the key element in his theories throughout his life. Originally, Krafft-Ebing’s theory stated that all sexual abnormalities, now referred to as fetishes or paraphilias, were caused by a hereditary and gene based factor (***). The origins of his beliefs come through the influence of two men; first a man by the name of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, the “first modern European to openly acknowledge his own man-loving nature and to defend it in print.” (***). Ulrichs felt that homosexuals have an inborn trait that makes them gay and that their sexual preference was decided pre-birth, regardless of their upbringing. The second man, Benedict Morel, had nothing to do with the study of sex in any way; his area of expertise was that of disease related medicine. At the time in which he live, the early to mid 19th century, diseases and disorders such as tuberculoses and mental retardation had no known origin and were ravishing Europe. To find an explanation for this, Morel purposed his theory of degeneration. This theory purposed that the actions of one member of the gene pool could affect the future generations forever. For example, a person who “too much partakes of alcohol, opium, or tobacco will permanently damage his heredity and his children will suffer consequences like tuberculosis, mental retardation, and a host of other diseases” (***). Even though this way of thinking was disproved, its influence at the time was rather strong. Krafft-Ebing spliced the two theories together, coming up with his belief in a strictly inborn origin of sexual disorders. To support his theory, Krafft-Ebing conducted many cross-cultural studies along with extensive case studies of prisoners convicted of sex crimes. His studies have been considered some of the most complete and most extensive case studies on the subject to date, covering the most hostile and ruthless men he could get his hands on (***). Based on his research of Ulrichs and Morel and the results from his studies, Krafft-Ebing wrote the first sexology book, Psychopathia Sexualis, in which he attempted to make clear, from the format and style and the occasional switch to Latin, that it was intended for medical research not lay readers (***). Regardless of his intents for the book, it became a key piece of literature in the new field of sexology. Krafft-Ebing opened the doors to the study of sex and sexual deviance with his theories, and like any scientific field, progress soon followed.
On to the theories of Alfred Binet; growing up, Binet did not study anything remotely medical, and had no intention of doing ever doing so, but the field of psychology somehow caught his interest and he was soon hooked. Binet was not largely involved in the field of sexology, he is better known for his development of intelligent tests, such as the Intelligence Quotient better known as the IQ test (***). He was also the first person to use the term fetish to describe a sexual attraction to an object (***); the term was later altered by Krafft-Ebing to be the sexual attraction to a body part. Now the term fetish is commonly used as a synthesis of the two men definitions to describe a fixation or arousal from something other than normal sexual intercourse. Even though he was not a sexologist, Binet still presented a direct counter to Krafft-Ebing’s thoughts on what causes sexual disorders; he purposed that they were gained through acquired learning and possibly conditioning at critical ages, not in any way inherent (***). Binet claimed that by looking back through the life of a sex offender, one could find certain events or environmental situations that affected the way sex is viewed or the way arousal is achieved by those individuals; these situations most would have occurred in their earlier years of adolescents. An example used by Binet is that of a child who is caught masturbating by his mom, she has the sister help to hold him down while she spanks him for pleasuring himself. Such a case, according to Binet, would most probably lead to an array of fetishes and fixations; first the sexual pleasure the boy gave himself would suddenly be associated with the pain of the spanking, most probably leading to a masochism fetish, one of being bound, beaten, or humiliated, with his sister in the room he might also develop incest (***). Binet felt that a simple act such as the punishment of the boy could affect the entire sexual life he pursues. Though the extent to which Binet contributed to sexology was relatively small, it has left a huge impact on the field as a whole.
With the introduction of Binet’s theory, Krafft-Ebing realized his need for revision to his original thoughts (***). His new and improved theory seemed to be a rather sloppy and careless derivation of his original; it now stated that upbringing and the environment do effect the development of sexual disorders, but only in those who poses the defective genes or have an inborn notion to develop them. This seems like a rather effortless and overly simplified combination of the two original theories; Krafft-Ebing left it as his final conclusion. For many years, researchers in the field of sexology have studied this argument and have pieced together theories of their own. The one in which I found the most relevant and sensible is that of a professor at John Hopkins Medical School named John Money. Being best know for his work on gender identification and transsexuals, Money, in regards to the roots of paraphilias, came to view there origins much like the origins of language, imprinted at birth and put to play by the environment (***). This theory involves a combination of the nature and nurture aspects present in the original theories by Krafft-Ebing and Binet. Money incorporates Krafft-Ebing's theory of nature by claiming that every individual is imprinted with the ability to acquire a paraphilia, but the imprinting is not limited solely to people with genetic disorders (***). He also believes strongly in the nurture aspect, stating that the paraphilia are formed when an event triggers the imprinting (***). The theory of imprinting, in general, first started with the Nobel Prize winner in physiology or medicine, Konrad Lorenz (***). Money adapted Lorenz’s theory to apply to the development of paraphilias. Combined with the later theories of Krafft-Ebing, Money was able to fabricate his own ideas on the causes of paraphilias. The strongest argument Money used to support his claim is its ability to apply globally and in a multicultural setting, much as language does. Continuing on, he argued that since nearly every person is believed to be imprinted in the same way world wide, the culture a child is raised in has an amazingly high effect on the sexual outcome of the child, not only in the way of harmful or bizarre paraphilias, but also in general practice and acceptability of sex. Money published a book entitled, “Vandalized Lovemaps: Paraphilic Outcome of Seven Cases in Pediatric Sexology” in which he examines seven case studies he himself performed (***). The studies look at the environment the child was raised in and specific events that occurred in the individual’s life. The seven case studies contain a surprising amount of variation, ranging from the causality of such paraphilias as acrotomophilia, sexual attractiveness to amputees, and apotemnophilia, the sexual desire to amputate something on someone or on ones self, to a paraphilia of drowning, a combination of asphyxiophilia, the paraphilia dealing with strangulation and suffocation, and aquaphilia, a water fetish (***). Money describes, in detail, the events in each young boy’s life that led him to his individual paraphilias. He also keyed the actual term “paraphilia” along with the scientific terminology for near every modern fetish or sexual disorder; he did this in order to make the subject sound more professional and scientific. By examining Krafft-Ebing and Binet, Money was able to formulate a workable hypothesis as to the origins of sexual deviance.
Fighting on the side of nature, Krafft-Ebing with his theory of inheritance and degeneration, on the side of nurture, Binet with his theory of acquired learning and conditioning, and lost somewhere in between is Money. To claim these men are pioneers in their way of thinking would be a mistake. The nature versus nurture debate has been around since the time before Aristotle or Plato; what makes Krafft-Ebing, Binet and Money so original is their application of this ancient argument to the field of sexology. Each of these men have given more than simple theories to the field, they have given insight and inspiration to other, a base for future researchers to build on, and that is what makes their theories so ground breaking
Work cited will be done for the final draft, all citations are done but not in the document yet |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
chrislazarus13's journal
