Paraphilias Across Cultures: Contexts and Controversies

Bhugra, Dinesh; Popelyuk, Dmitri; McMullen, Isabel

doi:10.1080/00224491003699833

Cited by 81 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the definition of what constitutes a 'further sexuality' is rather complex and is bound to both time and place (cf. Bhugra et al, 2010). Somewhat tautologically, then, this chapter considers those sexualities that do not fall fully within other chapters of this handbook as they are not so 'mainstream'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The Palgrave Handbook of the Psychology of Sexuality and Gender

Richards¹,

Barker²

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The Palgrave Handbook of the Psychology of Sexuality and Gender

Richards¹,

Barker²

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, among the Sambia of highland Papua New Guinea, boys age 7-10 are ritually inducted into homoerotic relationships with older males (Herdt, 1988). Even after 10 or so years in these homoerotic relationships the younger males move on to heteroerotic relationships, as culturally prescribed, without any apparent impact on sexual functioning (Bhugra et al, 2010;Stoller & Herdt, 1985). In ancient Greek and Roman societies homoerotic relationships between men and young males were considered acceptable, so long as the man was active and the younger male passive (Thorp, 1992).…”

Section: Social Constructionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is Sexual Orientation All About? Explaining an Evolutionary Paradox

Bowins¹

2015

International Journal of Social Science Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous psychological, biological, and evolutionary theories have been proposed to explain sexual orientation. For a theory to be valid it must account for the evolutionary or Darwinian paradox of how homosexual behavior seemingly blocking evolutionary fitness could have evolved. Typically it is only evolutionary based theories that attempt to address this issue. All theories proposed to date have limitations, a major one being that they tend to be specific for male or female sexual orientation. A model for sexual orientation is proposed that both explains the evolutionary paradox of homosexuality and accounts for male and female sexual orientation. The model departs from others by taking the approach that homosexuality and heterosexuality only represent descriptions of underlying natural occurrences. Four interactive components consisting of homoerotic and heteroerotic dimensions, activation/deactivation of these dimensions, erotic fantasy, and social construction comprise the model. Homoerotic and heteroerotic behaviors organized on separate dimensions represent natural occurrences. A completely novel process-activation and deactivation of these dimensions-is proposed to explain various manifestations of sexual orientation. Erotic fantasy provides an additional layer to sexuality beyond physical behavior and serves to activate sexual orientation dimensions, while social construction tends to deactivate inconsistent expressions. The evolutionary paradox only arises when behaviors are remade into identities via social construction, and heterosexual behavior inconsistent with a homosexual identity is deactivated.

show abstract

“…Sexuality is a highly underexplored area in India (Prakash & Rao, 2010), and hence within this context, it becomes important to study various aspects of sexuality including hypersexuality. Although paraphilias have been discussed across cultures (Bhugra, Popelyuk, & McMullen, 2010), there is no literature exploring or discussing hypersexual behaviors across cultures except a few exploring prevalence figures (for details see Reid, . It thus becomes difficult to understand hypersexuality from a crosscultural perspective.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%