Fantasy Wheel ©
Investigation
Psychopathology
Serial Crimes
Sex Offenders
Education
Research
Media
Victim Resources
Site Interaction
Contributors

 
Social Learning Theory as an Explanation of Autoerotic Deviance
Dawn Smitley
Sociology of Deviance
Dr. Heckert


ABSTRACT

Autoerotic deviance may be the most unknown type of deviance within the realm of empirical research and societal knowledge. This paper is an attempt to promote the understanding of how autoerotic deviance is learned and perpetuated from the theoretical perspective of Akers social learning theory. Social learning theory includes spontaneous behavior, imitation, vicarious learning, and schedules of reinforcement. In order to explain any behavior it is important to understand every aspect of the behavior from the onset to the extinguishing phase of the behavior.

INTRODUCTION

Autoerotic deviance is defined as any potentially life threatening actions committed with the intention of increasing sexual gratification. The most common form of this practice is hanging. Death can occur from such practices because asphyxiation occurs during the hanging process. However, there have been document cases of electrocution and exposure to elements as well.

Social learning theory is the best theory to describe this behavior. Akers version of social learning theory includes spontaneous behavior, schedules of reinforcement, discriminative stimuli, and theories of neutralization, which cover the beginning, maintenance, and gratification that is experienced by those who practice autoeroticism. There is no other theory that is complete enough to explain all of the stages mentioned above.

This paper attempts to explain autoerotic behavior as well as how social learning theory can be used to explain the development and perpetuation of the behaviors. The paper also examines the intricacies of an autoerotic investigation in order to demonstrate some of the principles of social learning theory. A brief overview of social learning theory and the history of autoerotic fatalities followed by a description of how autoerotic behavior is learned and perpetuated. This paper will also provide policy implications for preventing future autoerotic deviance.

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

The main principle behind social learning theory is that behavior is learned through social interactions. Each of the theories attempts to show that people are deviant because they have, in some way, learned that deviance or crime is favorable versus conforming to the rules set down by society. Also, deviance is learned in the same manner that other behaviors are learned. It is important for the understanding of autoerotic deviance to discuss the works of Sutherland and Akers. The aspects of social learning theory used to describe such behavior are based on the work of Akers, but it is important to understand how he expanded the work of Sutherland as well.

Differential association theory is most commonly associated with the work of Sutherland, and is the precursor to what is now called social learning theory. He asserted that deviance is learned through interaction with the primary person or people in an individual's life. The peer groups and relationships a person has with others helps them to learn definitions favorable to deviance or to conforming. The learning of favorable definitions over non favorable definitions of deviance is the cause of crime and deviance according to Sutherland.

Akers modified the work of Sutherland and generally calls his theory social learning theory. He added some classical conditioning concepts such as; schedules of reinforcement that perpetuate behaviors, vicarious reinforcement that allows individuals to learn through the experiences of the others, and spontaneous behavior, in which, an individual creates new behavior by chaining other behaviors together. He also added that people can learn through imitation and modeling. Akers theory can be summed up as follows: people become deviant because deviance has been differentially reinforced and defined as desirable or justifiable over conforming behavior (Akers, & Sellers, 2003).

HISTORY OF AUTOEROTIC FATALITIES

Autoerotic practices have been around for ages, dating back to, at least, the Aztec Indians who had artistic portrayals of autoeroticism. Ancient Aztec wall art has been found depicting hanging men with erections (Hazelwood, Dietz, & Burgess, 1983). There have been documented writings that discuss the concept of using dangerous practices to enhance sexual pleasure dating back as far as the Marquis de Sade's Justine which was published in the late 1700's (Resnik, 1972). In his many writings, the Marquis made several references to using ropes for self pleasure, and the erotic nature of masturbating with props (Resnik, 1972). The most notable example of autoeroticism in literature occurred in 1710.

Jonathan Swift wrote " Swinging by Session upon a Cord, in order to raise artificial Extasies" (Hazelwood, et al., 1983, 7). Countless other novels and stories have been written that included aspects of autoeroticism as the focus or a part of the story. It is important to understand that autoerotic practices are not a new occurrence. In 1911, Hans Ewers wrote a novel depicting a hanged man with an erection and other various elements that brought masturbation together with asphyxiation. (Resnik, 1972). This was a fairly common practice for those in the upper classes, and was widely known by the early sixteenth century (Hazelwood, et. al., 1983). The earliest documented case of death while practicing autoerotic asphyxia occurred in 1791 when the well known musician Kotzwarra died of an autoerotic practice (Hazelwood, Burgess, & Groth, 1981).

On September 16, 1791 a women named Susannah Hill was tried for the murder of Francis Kotzwarra. During her trial it became known that Kotzwarra had asked her to tie him in a hanging position for five minutes for the purposes of enhancing his sexual pleasure. He subsequently died, and she was found innocent because he "trusted more to the charms of the cord" (Hazelwood, et al. 1983, 16-18). Looking at the historical references to autoerotic deviance can aid in the understanding of how this behavior develops.

LEARNING AUTOEROTIC DEVIANCE

It is logical to assume that many, if not most, of the practitioners of autoeroticism do not read the academic literature that has been published on the topic. That being said, there must be another explanation for how thy learn such behavior. One such explanation from a social learning perspective is that they learn the behaviors through vicarious learning.

Vicarious learning is the learning that occurs by observing or hearing that others have had an experience (Akers, & Sellers, 2003). Autoerotic deviance can be learned vicariously through the media, or the internet. There has been mention of autoerotic behavior in major motion pictures such as "Rising Sun". There have also been representations of autoerotic fatalities on "COPS", and "NYPD BLUE". Viewers of these programs can learn the behavior, vicariously, through watching the behaviors displayed.

The media has a major impact on the attitudes of young people in regards to sexual practices ( Linz, Wilson, & Donnerstein, 1992). Their findings suggest that viewers could be desensitized to violence shown by the media (most often movies) by violent scenes being used to emphasize sexual pleasure (Linz, et. al., 1992). This is believed to cause psychological effects to the viewer, because they begin to equate the pleasure with violence (Linz, et. al., 1992). This could possibly explain how people learn autoerotic practices.

Another part of vicarious learning is imitation. Imitation is learning behaviors by directly observing, and copying the actions of another (Akers,& Sellers, 2003). Autoeroticism can be learned through imitation via the internet or pornographic magazines. There is an entire subset of the porn industry that appears to be devoted to depictions of bondage and masochistic behaviors. Included in masochistic behaviors are depictions of hanging people with erections and the gratification that can be received through such activities. Research has attempted to demonstrate that autoerotic behaviors are a representation of masochistic desires and are, therefore, learned easily through imitation of masochistic depictions.

Some researchers argue that sexual asphyxia is a type of masochistic practice (Baumeister, 1988). The pain that masochists are attempting to receive can be a sexual stimulus that allows masochists the ability to escape, along with more intense sexual gratification (Weinberg, Williams, & Moser, 1984). Assuming that a person is a masochist, they would, Baumeister argues, seek out depictions of, and props for the purposes of receiving pain (Baumeister, 1988). It is reasonable to conclude, then, that some autoerotic practitioners are masochists, and learn this behavior through masochistic depictions in pornography and on the internet. Social learning theory, however, asserts that definitions are learned from peer groups as well.

There is a new type of sexual deviance related to autoeroticism that is gaining popularity among teenagers. The new practice is called "breath play" and is a form of asphyxiation that is very similar to typical autoerotic behaviors. The difference between the two is that "breath play" is not practiced alone. The significance of the new movement is that it can be a learning point for autoerotic practices.

As discussed by Courtright and Baran (1980), sexual information received by young people comes mainly from peers. The sexual socialization of young people was found to be very influenced by the combination of peers and other relationships (Courtright & Baran, 1980). Brown (2002) ascertains that young people are especially susceptible to peer exposure during adolescence. It was found that when questioned concerning their learned sex beliefs, most adolescents thirteen to fifteen years old claimed that friends were the foremost learning vessel. (Brown, 2002). These claims cause concern for the influence of the gaining popularity of "breath play". If adolescents learn most of their sexual information from peers, and they are involved with peers who practice breath play, they will be more susceptible to learning more favorable than unfavorable definitions of sexual deviance. It can be logically assumed that if they learn to like the asphyxiation behavior in "breath play", then they can easily adapt that behavior into autoeroticism.

Perhaps the best explanation for autoerotic deviance is spontaneous behavior. Spontaneous behavior is any behavior that is created by stringing more than one previously known behaviors together (Akers, & Sellers, 2003). Putting more than one known behavior together seems to be the most logical explanation for how people get involved in autoerotic behavior. The first known recordings of autoerotic behaviors, Aztec wall art, is a clear example of spontaneous behaviors. They learned, by viewing hanging men with erections, that some sexually arousing aspects take place during the process of asphyxiation (Hazelwood, They began to put two previously known behaviors, hanging and erections, together for the creation of a new behavior, autoerotic asphyxia.

PERPETUATING AUTOEROTIC DEVIANCE

This behavior is maintained through the learning of definitions favorable to autoerotic practices over definitions unfavorable to autoerotic practices. Social learning theory is based on the idea that people are deviant because they learn definitions favorable to deviance more than definition unfavorable to deviance (Akers, 2003). Autoeroticism is such an obscure and solitary behavior that has no societal support for practitioners to learn definitions unfavorable. Also, people are very secretive about this behavior and do not generally discuss it with others. It appears that once the behavior is learned, there is no way for the person to learn any other definitions. How can this behavior be perpetuated, then, if there is no discussion with others?

Autoerotic behavior is perpetuated through reinforcement. Reinforcement is the consequences of any behavior that increase the likelihood that a behavior will be repeated (Akers, & Sellers, 2003). There are two schedules of reinforcement that are included in social learning theory. First, intermittent reinforcement, is the receiving of a reinforcer only every so many times the behavior is committed, and the participant is unaware of when the reinforcer is coming (Akers, & Sellers, 2003). Intermittent reinforcement is generally used to describe the reason that people continue gambling behavior. Second, continuous reinforcement is best described as the receiving of a reinforcer each and every time a behavior is performed (Akers, & Sellers, 2003). Autoerotic practitioners receive a reinforcer every time that they practice the behavior. The continuous reenforcement leads to satiation of the reinforcers ability to perpetuate the behaviors. Autoerotic practitioners adapt to the satiation and increase their level of participation and the complexity of the props they use.

The investigation of autoerotic fatalities by police officers give several clues that support the satiation that occurs from continuous reinforcement. During an investigation of a potential autoerotic fatalities, the police need to look for two main aspects that demonstrate a change in the practices over time. First, the officers look for a self rescue mechanism. The self rescue mechanism is a provision made by the practitioner to help reduce potential injury (Hazelwood, Dietz, & Burgess, 1981). Over time the self rescue mechanism becomes more complex to match the complexity of injurious agent.

An injurious agent is any instrument that is used to cut off the supply of oxygen to the brain during autoerotic practices (Hazelwood, et al., 1981). Due to the satiation of the reinforcer, the participant is forced to make the practice more complex in order to get the same amount of sexual gratification from the activity. The evidence of this is that there is often much evidence of previous practice found at the scene of death. Investigators have been able to locate excess ropes that show the progression from simple, circular shaped rope, to an extremely detailed hangman's noose (Hazelwood, et al., 1983). The evidence clearly points to an evolvement of the activity due to the satiation that occurs under a continuous schedule of reinforcement.

Punishment is also an important aspect of social learning theory. Punishments decrease the likelihood that a behavior will be repeated (Akers, & Sellers, 2003). There is no known punishment experienced by autoerotic practitioners (Blanchard, & Hucker, 1991). Death is the only punishment that is associated with the behavior, but it is not a punishment that can be learned from by the participant. There is, however, some evidence that autoerotic practitioners have been caught in the act.

The person who catches an autoerotic practitioner is usually shocked by what they have seen, but does not always understand the nature of what they saw. Some amount of embarrassment by both parties exists, but is often never discussed again. This allows the practitioner to walk away from the incident without any punishment. However, it cannot be assumed that no person caught during an autoerotic act receives enough punishment by the embarrassment to stop the behavior, only that the majority do not. The lack of punishment accompanied by the use of theories of neutralization can account for the perpetuation of autoerotic behavior.

Sykes and Matza developed the theory of neutralization. They asserted that people are able to justify their behavior through techniques that allow them to not have guilt or shame associated with the behaviors they have committed. The theory also maintains that people commit behaviors that they are able to justify in their own minds, or that they justify their behavior afterward to escape feelings of guilt. Some examples of theories of neutralization are; denial of harm, and denial of victim. Akers added theories of neutralization to his version of social learning theory (Akers, & Sellers, 2003). Neutralization techniques are a good way to explain the perpetuation of autoerotic deviance.

Techniques of neutralization can help to explain why people continue dangerous autoerotic practices despite the fact that they are aware of the potential dangers associated with the activity. Practitioners believe that they will not be harmed because they know what they are doing, or that they took precautions by using a self rescue mechanism. These are both justifications of their behavior that allow them to continue the practice without having to worry about the potentially fatal consequences that they may be facing.

The stigma that surrounds autoeroticism creates a lack of understanding on the topic and also creates a neutralization technique for autoerotic practitioners. Practitioners, often, do not know that many people die from such practices, so they are able to neutralize their continued participation by telling themselves that no one has ever died from this activity. It can also be argued that the participants deny that fact that they are hurting anyone else. This is due, in part, to the discriminative stimulus that is created by the obscure nature of autoeroticism.

A discriminative stimulus is a cue for the behavior to occur. The discriminative stimulus is given meaning through the reinforcers or punishers that accompany it (Akers, & Sellers, 2003). For autoerotic practitioners, people and places become the discriminative stimulus. Perhaps a young man is caught in the act of hanging himself for sexual pleasure and his mother walks in; she becomes the discriminative stimulus and the next time the young man locks the door, or creates a private place to avoid discovery. The marks left around a neck after hanging has occurred can also be a discriminative stimulus. If the marks are discovered by another person, the practitioner learns to put a cloth or other soft article between the rope and the neck to avoid this happening again (Hazelwood, Deitz, & Burgess, 1981).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The policy implications of approaching autoerotic fatalities from a social learning perspective are numerous. However, the most important policy implications are that of education. The first step that should be taken is to educate the public on the dangers of autoerotic practices. This can be a difficult and dangerous task. Oprah Winfrey attempted to educate the public on autoerotic fatalities and ended up aiding in the death of a man who learned about autoeroticism from watching the show (O'Halloran, & Lovell, 1988).

Public education of sexual practices is far from a new concept. Many educational mediums promoting information sharing and protection against sexually transmitted diseases are provided. The American Social Health Association is a resource where people can find information on a wide variety of sexual issue topics (Brown, 2002). Health classes in schools designate entire sections of time to discussing sexual education. However, taboo subjects, such as autoeroticism are not discussed. An argument against the education of such sexual practices is that young people develop patterns of behavior during the important adolescent sexual developmental stage (Brown, 2002). From this standpoint, to educate young people about such practices would only promote practice and the coinciding consequences (Brown, 2002).

The opposing argument is that if no one is educating adolescents about the dangers associated with this practice, how are they to know its possible consequences and learn definitions unfavorable to autoerotic practices. Schools in eighteen states are mandated to offer sexuality education and thirty-four states are required to offer STD/HIV education to students (Fortenberry, 2002). The consequences of sexual activity are part of the curriculum. Students are made aware of consequences of certain actions. This education does not include consequences about autoerotic asphyxia. Education of autoeroticism would also benefit society by reducing the stigma and taboo nature of the practice which would, in turn, make more people feel comfortable about discussing their own experiences.

Education can come from many facets of society, but one that can not be ignored is the obvious invaluable potential of the media. Arguments have been made against the idea of educating the public about autoerotic asphyxia through the media. Brown (2002) asserted that due to the impressionable nature of adolescents, it is a topic more suited for discussion with parents and schools. Courtright and Baran (1980) have a different perspective on the issue. They believe that as an individual increases his or her level of sexual activity that the media and the images depicted within it becomes less real to them. One can then infer, when using this perspective, that perhaps a person's level of sexual experience plays a role in whether using the media as a method for prevention of autoeroticism would be effective. It has been found though that knowledge alone can not prevent a specific behavioral action (Strouse & Fabes, 1985). However, clinic-based programs with an element of counseling formulated around the specific issue of autoerotic asphyxia can effectively increase prevention (Fortenberry, 2002). Hazelwood, Burgess, and Groth (1981) hypothesize that as society becomes more aware and knowledgeable about autoerotic asphyxia, the taboo status and secrecy that goes along with it will fade. Only then will cases be more likely to be reported and the topic understood (Hazelwood, et. al., 1981).

Another possible policy implication would be to block pornographic web sites for people under the age of 18. There is already a policy in place that requires people who log on to the sites to be over the age of 18, but the sign in process is not well monitored. A system that is better able to verify the ages of people attempting to view those pages would help to stop some people from so easily viewing images that may be suggestive of autoerotic practices. It would be naive to think that adolescents would not be able to get this information elsewhere, but more vigilant monitoring of the web sites is a good start.

CONCLUSION

This paper demonstrates how social learning theory can be adapted to explain autoerotic deviance. Through the use of existing literature, it is possible to explain one of the most taboo sexual subjects within our society today. Social learning theory best describes autoerotic deviance because it is inclusive of elements that explain both the learning and the perpetuation of autoerotic deviance. Participating in dangerous activities for the purpose of heightened sexual gratification is not a widely accepted practiced in our society which makes it difficult to explain from any theoretical perspective, but social learning theory, as proposed by Akers & Sellers, allows for a full explanation of the deviance and all of the aspects that surround the activity.

 
REFERENCES


Akers, R., & Sellers, . (2003). Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. Roxbury Publishing company.

Auden, G. (1927). An Unusual Form of Suicide. Journal of Mental Science, 73, 428-430.

Baumeister, R. (1988). Masochism as Escape from Self. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, 28-59.

Blanchard, R., & Hucker, S. (1991). Age, Transvestism, Bondage, and Concurrent Paraphilic Activities in 117 Fatal Cases of Autoerotic Asphyxia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 371-377.

Brown, J. (2002). Mass Media Influences on Sexuality. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 42-45.

Courtright, J., & Baran, S. (1980). The Acquisition of Sexual Information By Young People. Journalism Quarterly, 57, 107-114.

Fortenberry, J. (2002). Clinic Based Service Programs for Increasing Responsible Sexual Behavior. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 63-66.

Hazelwood, R., Burgess, A., & Groth, N. (1981). Death During Dangerous Autoerotic Practices. Social Science and Medicine, 15E, 129-133.

Hazelwood, R., Dietz, P., & Burgess, A. (1981). The Investigation of Autoerotic Fatalities. The Journal of Policy Science and Administration, 9, 301-311.

Hazelwood, R., Dietz, P., & Burgess, A. (1982). Sexual Fatalities: Behavioral Reconstruction in Equivocal Cases. Journal of Forensic Science, 27, 763-773.

Hazelwood, R., Dietz, P., & Burgess, A. (1983). Autoerotic Fatalities. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Linz, D., Wilson, B., & Donnerstein, E. (1992). Sexual Violence in the Mass Media: Legal Solutions, Warnings, and Mitigation Through Education. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 145-171.

O'Halloran, R., & Lovell, F. (1988). Autoerotic Asphyxial Death Following Television Broadcast. Journal of Forensic Science, 33, 1491-1492.

Resnik, H. (1972). Erotized Repetitive Hangings: A Form of Self-destructive Behavior. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 26, 4-21.

Strouse, J., & Fabes, R. (1985). Formal Versus Informal Sources of Sex Education: Competing Forces in the Sexual Socialization of Adolescents. Adolescence, 20, 251-261.

Weinberg, M., Williams, C., & Moser, C. (1984). The Social Constuents of Sadomasochism.Social Problems, 31, 379-388.


 


 

                               E-mail your questions or suggestions to Bryan Nelson

Last Updated:   01/01/2008

© 2002-2008, Deviant Crimes