Fantasmes-Fétichisme
Paraphilia is a term used by some psychiatric circles in the U.S. instead of perversion whose meaning has become pejorative. The word is the translation of English paraphilia, composed from the Greek para-, παρά = ‘from beside’ and-philia, φιλία = ‘love.’ This neologism, also used in sexology, means any sexual attraction or practice which differs acts traditionally considered ‘normal’, but if the attraction and fantasy are not paraphilic reprehensible acts that they can induce are often classified as crimes or sex crimes in different countries.
A boundary between psychiatry and sociology
A principle questionable
Appeared in the voluminous work of Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902) in psychopatia Sexualis (1886), the very idea of a systematic sexual behavior akin to the notion of perversion is now highly contested: ‘true’Paraphile before a fortiori, as a psychopath / sociopath, meet the object of his sexual deviancy to get excited, but what about the one who finds pleasure spot, or as many who maintain these supposed ‘disease’ as a fantasy? How much time or relative importance in the daily newspaper should be adopted? In fact, the individual can not be reduced to a neurosis but only being formed of a multiple equilibria, each may be considered to some degree as paraphile!
Therefore the question of paraphilia can be approached from a social perspective and its limitations fit into a more legal and psychological interrogation. The philosopher Michel Onfray, in the interests of pleasures. Construction of a solar erotic, moved to counter this process by shifting the notion of intersubjective agreement approaching the one adopted in 1817 by Charles Fourier in the New World in love:utopian admits that there is an infinity of sexuality and fantasies but that individuals can ‘top up’ knowing ‘what a pleasure to several people without any prejudice is always a good on which we must speculate in Harmony where it is necessary to vary the pleasures to infinity ‘.
Current list of paraphilias
Despite many challenges, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) list eight major paraphilias. According to this publication for a paraphilia is diagnosed, the subject of deviance must be the only source of sexual gratification for a period of six months or less and must cause ‘clinically significant distress or handicap in the social field, professional or other important areas of functioning ‘or involve a violation of the consent of others.
Importance of the reference model
The normal and abnormal, health and illness are defined from a reference model that is considered representative of normality.But these models referents are not always explicit, and change with the times, cultures and societies.
In traditional societies, the referent is sometimes developed from a simple analysis of what is observed. For example kissing is against nature as the mouth, with teeth, is made to eat and not sexuality. Sodomy is disgusting as the anus contains feces disgusting. Oro-genital activities are doomed because of the taste and odor of the genitals.
In Roman antiquity, the main reference was the manliness (and not heterosexuality). Society condemned to being passive, that is to say, to serve another. This role was conceivable that a person of lower rank. Seneca noted that ‘passivity is a crime in a man of free birth; in a slave is his duty as absolute.’ From this reference manhood, all sexual activity where men are active are ‘normal’:with wife, a mistress, with ‘slave, man or woman.’ For the Romans, there were also sexual activities that were contrary to their cultural representations of ‘nature’. These activities ‘against nature’ were ‘bestiality, necrophilia and unions with the gods.’
In the eighteenth century, the naturalist Georges Buffon, in agreement with the beliefs of the time, believes that black people are not human beings, but ‘super-apes.’ Based on these beliefs, all sexual relations between whites and blacks was thus considered relations ‘against nature’ of bestiality between a human and an animal, and the guilty were condemned to the stake.
In the nineteenth century, the reference model was the ‘sexual instinct’ means any sexual activity that did not allow the reproduction, that is to say that was not directly related to vaginal intercourse was considered a perversion:eg sodomy, oral-genital activity, or sexual activity between same sex or immature.
In the early twentieth century, mostly to the psychoanalytic model that will remove the sexual perversions of moral systems and classifiers for previously. This is especially the book of 1905 by Sigmund Freud’s Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality that psychoanalytic theory will take its seats. The founder of psychoanalysis postulates that human sexuality is inherently opposed to the principles of self-preservation and that there will be somewhat subdued by the exigencies of life in society. Thus he speaks of ‘polymorphous perverse child’ since for him the whole source of pleasure will be a goal. It’s evolution, including sublimation, which will convert the libido puslion epistemophilic or by the failures of a fixation, lead to a perversion stable.
At the end of the twentiethcentury, from the neurology and psychiatric consensus among experts, has developed a new reference, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). But socio-cultural continue to influence what is considered normal or pathological. For example, it was after a meeting between the editors of DSM and gay activists that homosexuality was no longer considered a disease. And this is after the cultural phenomenon of the sexual revolution that several paraphilias have been removed from DSM.
In the 2000s, neuroscience research has shown that humans (and the chimpanzee, the bonobo, the orang utan and the Dauphin), sexual behavior is no longer a breeding behavior, but behavior becomes erotic. During evolution, the importance and influence of hormones and pheromones on sexual behavior has decreased. However, in mammals the simplest, it is the pheromones that are the cause of heterosexuality. Instead, the importance of rewards / reinforcements became major.In humans, the purpose of sexual behavior is more vaginal intercourse but the search for erotic pleasures, provided by the stimulation of the body and erogenous zones, and regardless of the characteristics of the partner.
According to this model, where the rewards are the main factor of sexual behavior, problems and pathologies of sexuality are no longer in business (regardless of the means of erotic pleasure), but at the level of malfunctioning process the reward (or hypo hypersexuality, sexual addiction), at the relationship between partners (physical or psychological), and at the particular social and unfounded beliefs (cultural context inducing, for example, blame for the loss of virginity, sodomy or masturbation).
In conclusion, comparing eras and societies, we see that the reference models are changing and are not always explicit or described accurately, for several reasons: for example, in the early twentiethcentury, the concept of ‘instinct’ is losing its scientific accuracy, sexual mores and morals change over time, and knowledge about human sexuality are partial and evolving. The twenty-first century, what is considered normal or pathological still depends in part on the state of knowledge and cultural context.
Ultimately, beyond the cultural beliefs, the diagnosis of sexual pathology should be based on the knowledge of sexuality. But paradoxically, the twenty-first century, science and technology, there is little institutional structures whose objective is to understand human sexuality. How then rigorously define what is ‘normal’ and what is ‘pathological’?
Importance of the reference model
The normal and abnormal, health and illness are defined from a reference model that is considered representative of normality.But these models referents are not always explicit, and change with the times, cultures and societies.
In traditional societies, the referent is sometimes developed from a simple analysis of what is observed. For example kissing is against nature as the mouth, with teeth, is made to eat and not sexuality. Sodomy is disgusting as the anus contains feces disgusting. Oro-genital activities are doomed because of the taste and odor of the genitals.
In Roman antiquity, the main reference was the manliness (and not heterosexuality). Society condemned to being passive, that is to say, to serve another. This role was conceivable that a person of lower rank. Seneca noted that ‘passivity is a crime in a man of free birth; in a slave is his duty as absolute.’ From this reference manhood, all sexual activity where men are active are ‘normal’:with wife, a mistress, with ‘slave, man or woman.’ For the Romans, there were also sexual activities that were contrary to their cultural representations of ‘nature’. These activities ‘against nature’ were ‘bestiality, necrophilia and unions with the gods.’
In the eighteenth century, the naturalist Georges Buffon, in agreement with the beliefs of the time, believes that black people are not human beings, but ‘super-apes.’ Based on these beliefs, all sexual relations between whites and blacks was thus considered relations ‘against nature’ of bestiality between a human and an animal, and the guilty were condemned to the stake.
In the nineteenth century, the reference model was the ‘sexual instinct’ means any sexual activity that did not allow the reproduction, that is to say that was not directly related to vaginal intercourse was considered a perversion:eg sodomy, oral-genital activity, or sexual activity between same sex or immature.
In the early twentieth century, mostly to the psychoanalytic model that will remove the sexual perversions of moral systems and classifiers for previously. This is especially the book of 1905 by Sigmund Freud’s Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality that psychoanalytic theory will take its seats. The founder of psychoanalysis postulates that human sexuality is inherently opposed to the principles of self-preservation and that there will be somewhat subdued by the exigencies of life in society. Thus he speaks of ‘polymorphous perverse child’ since for him the whole source of pleasure will be a goal. It’s evolution, including sublimation, which will convert the libido puslion epistemophilic or by the failures of a fixation, lead to a perversion stable.
At the end of the twentiethcentury, from the neurology and psychiatric consensus among experts, has developed a new reference, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). But socio-cultural continue to influence what is considered normal or pathological. For example, it was after a meeting between the editors of DSM and gay activists that homosexuality was no longer considered a disease. And this is after the cultural phenomenon of the sexual revolution that several paraphilias have been removed from DSM.
In the 2000s, neuroscience research has shown that humans (and the chimpanzee, the bonobo, the orang utan and the Dauphin), sexual behavior is no longer a breeding behavior, but behavior becomes erotic. During evolution, the importance and influence of hormones and pheromones on sexual behavior has decreased. However, in mammals the simplest, it is the pheromones that are the cause of heterosexuality. Instead, the importance of rewards / reinforcements became major.In humans, the purpose of sexual behavior is more vaginal intercourse but the search for erotic pleasures, provided by the stimulation of the body and erogenous zones, and regardless of the characteristics of the partner.
According to this model, where the rewards are the main factor of sexual behavior, problems and pathologies of sexuality are no longer in business (regardless of the means of erotic pleasure), but at the level of malfunctioning process the reward (or hypo hypersexuality, sexual addiction), at the relationship between partners (physical or psychological), and at the particular social and unfounded beliefs (cultural context inducing, for example, blame for the loss of virginity, sodomy or masturbation).
In conclusion, comparing eras and societies, we see that the reference models are changing and are not always explicit or described accurately, for several reasons: for example, in the early twentiethcentury, the concept of ‘instinct’ is losing its scientific accuracy, sexual mores and morals change over time, and knowledge about human sexuality are partial and evolving. The twenty-first century, what is considered normal or pathological still depends in part on the state of knowledge and cultural context.
Ultimately, beyond the cultural beliefs, the diagnosis of sexual pathology should be based on the knowledge of sexuality. But paradoxically, the twenty-first century, science and technology, there is little institutional structures whose objective is to understand human sexuality. How then rigorously define what is ‘normal’ and what is ‘pathological’?
Importance of the reference model
The normal and abnormal, health and illness are defined from a reference model that is considered representative of normality.But these models referents are not always explicit, and change with the times, cultures and societies.
In traditional societies, the referent is sometimes developed from a simple analysis of what is observed. For example kissing is against nature as the mouth, with teeth, is made to eat and not sexuality. Sodomy is disgusting as the anus contains feces disgusting. Oro-genital activities are doomed because of the taste and odor of the genitals.
In Roman antiquity, the main reference was the manliness (and not heterosexuality). Society condemned to being passive, that is to say, to serve another. This role was conceivable that a person of lower rank. Seneca noted that ‘passivity is a crime in a man of free birth; in a slave is his duty as absolute.’ From this reference manhood, all sexual activity where men are active are ‘normal’:with wife, a mistress, with ‘slave, man or woman.’ For the Romans, there were also sexual activities that were contrary to their cultural representations of ‘nature’. These activities ‘against nature’ were ‘bestiality, necrophilia and unions with the gods.’
In the eighteenth century, the naturalist Georges Buffon, in agreement with the beliefs of the time, believes that black people are not human beings, but ‘super-apes.’ Based on these beliefs, all sexual relations between whites and blacks was thus considered relations ‘against nature’ of bestiality between a human and an animal, and the guilty were condemned to the stake.
In the nineteenth century, the reference model was the ‘sexual instinct’ means any sexual activity that did not allow the reproduction, that is to say that was not directly related to vaginal intercourse was considered a perversion:eg sodomy, oral-genital activity, or sexual activity between same sex or immature.
In the early twentieth century, mostly to the psychoanalytic model that will remove the sexual perversions of moral systems and classifiers for previously. This is especially the book of 1905 by Sigmund Freud’s Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality that psychoanalytic theory will take its seats. The founder of psychoanalysis postulates that human sexuality is inherently opposed to the principles of self-preservation and that there will be somewhat subdued by the exigencies of life in society. Thus he speaks of ‘polymorphous perverse child’ since for him the whole source of pleasure will be a goal. It’s evolution, including sublimation, which will convert the libido puslion epistemophilic or by the failures of a fixation, lead to a perversion stable.
At the end of the twentiethcentury, from the neurology and psychiatric consensus among experts, has developed a new reference, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). But socio-cultural continue to influence what is considered normal or pathological. For example, it was after a meeting between the editors of DSM and gay activists that homosexuality was no longer considered a disease. And this is after the cultural phenomenon of the sexual revolution that several paraphilias have been removed from DSM.
In the 2000s, neuroscience research has shown that humans (and the chimpanzee, the bonobo, the orang utan and the Dauphin), sexual behavior is no longer a breeding behavior, but behavior becomes erotic. During evolution, the importance and influence of hormones and pheromones on sexual behavior has decreased. However, in mammals the simplest, it is the pheromones that are the cause of heterosexuality. Instead, the importance of rewards / reinforcements became major.In humans, the purpose of sexual behavior is more vaginal intercourse but the search for erotic pleasures, provided by the stimulation of the body and erogenous zones, and regardless of the characteristics of the partner.
According to this model, where the rewards are the main factor of sexual behavior, problems and pathologies of sexuality are no longer in business (regardless of the means of erotic pleasure), but at the level of malfunctioning process the reward (or hypo hypersexuality, sexual addiction), at the relationship between partners (physical or psychological), and at the particular social and unfounded beliefs (cultural context inducing, for example, blame for the loss of virginity, sodomy or masturbation).
In conclusion, comparing eras and societies, we see that the reference models are changing and are not always explicit or described accurately, for several reasons: for example, in the early twentiethcentury, the concept of ‘instinct’ is losing its scientific accuracy, sexual mores and morals change over time, and knowledge about human sexuality are partial and evolving. The twenty-first century, what is considered normal or pathological still depends in part on the state of knowledge and cultural context.
Ultimately, beyond the cultural beliefs, the diagnosis of sexual pathology should be based on the knowledge of sexuality. But paradoxically, the twenty-first century, science and technology, there is little institutional structures whose objective is to understand human sexuality. How then rigorously define what is ‘normal’ and what is ‘pathological’?
Talk Live October 18, 2000
Agenor: Hello, we always talk about premature ejaculation I have the opposite problem I have never beenearly but 43 years since I have 1year and despite an ardent companion, I need 1 or 2 hours to ejaculate and it goes that long if I put the cover I know that I could not do it myself or it require an intense effort. I do not drink, do not smoke, I am athletic and I begin to ask questions. Thank you for helping me.