Furry Research: Autoplushophilia and Erotic Target Location Error

“Erotic target location error” (or ETLE) is a theory that describes how fetishes might develop. It was first mooted in the early 1990s, but has been largely ignored by psychologists and sexologists since then. In 2009 it was revisited, and possibly reinvigorated, by Dr Anne Lawrence for a paper in the Journal of Sex Research titled Erotic Target Location Errors: An Underappreciated Paraphilic Dimension.

The ETLE theory is simple enough. It suggests that people who experience normal sexual attraction sometimes associate peripheral objects with that attraction, creating a fetish towards that new object. So a foot fetishist might originally have been attracted to, say, women, but they have experienced “location error”, making feet their preferred erotic target.

Dr Lawrence proposes that furries are an “uncomplicated” version of ETLE. Furries, she says, are sexually attracted to stuffed animals, and that fursuiting (or as she calls it, fursuitism) is an attempt to transform into an erotic ideal, i.e. a stuffed animal. Furries are therefore autoplushophiles.

102-table

The table above mentions plushophiles only, but Dr Lawrence makes clear that she is referring to furries as a whole, using the blanket term “furverts” later in the paper. She uses either term to refer to people who display sexual attraction towards stuffed animals and/or “anthropomorphic cartoon characters”, a classification that covers a large majority of our community.

Dr Lawrence’s paper is long at 22 pages, and she spends only a half page or so on furries. She concludes that section with: “Formal study will be necessary to clarify the nature, prevalence, and interrelations of plushophilia, fursuitism, and autoplushophilia among furverts and to document the nature and extent of any co-occurring paraphilias.

If you think this sounds bonkers, you’d be right. A close reading of the rest of the paper helps understand how and why Dr Lawrence has got it so wrong.

Dr Lawrence is a sexologist (and former anaesthesiologist) who identifies as an autogynephilic transsexual* woman. That is, she is MTF transgender, and believes that her gender identity is fundamentally driven by her attraction to women, which is a kind of ETLE called “erotic target identity inversion”. She believes that many transgender women can be considered to be heterosexual men with ETLE. Those men who wish to transition are similar to those men who get an erotic thrill from wearing women’s clothing. Dr Lawrence believes that transgender women are essentially just heterosexual men displaying fetishistic behaviour. She calls them “men trapped in men’s bodies”.

* her phrase

You will not be surprised to hear that this is controversial. It’s a fringe theory, but one that is considered valuable by some respected sexologists. (The personal identification of Dr Lawrence, and others, as autogynephilic transsexuals is evidence that the theory is a useful one in at least some cases.)

Dr Lawrence’s paper is an attempt to have ETLE included in the DSM-5, and also for MtF transsexualism to classified as a paraphilia (i.e. a fetish). It’s an outrageous paper, full of falsehoods and blatantly misleading rhetorical techniques, all in the service of her stated goal of influencing the DSM-5. The ludicrous section on furries is joined by other so-called “uncomplicated erotic target location errors”, seemingly included only to bolster Dr Lawrence’s main point. The paper would be laughable it weren’t published in a relatively high-profile journal. On my reading, Dr Lawrence comes off as a crank who is interested in advancement of her own pet theory at the expense of anything resembling good science.

That’s not to say that some transgender women aren’t autogynephilic, or that some furries aren’t autoplushophiles. Both cases are true.

102-twitter
A tweet from someone who might be considered to be an autoplushophile. Tweeter is anonymous by request.

 

The problem with Dr Lawrence’s paper has nothing to do with the concept of ETLE itself. The problem is that she over-reaches, not least by suggesting that ETLE should be emphasized as fundamental to understanding “non-homosexual gender identity disorder in men” and fetishes in general.

Side note: Dr Lawrence’s use of the phrase “non-homosexual” in the above quote is a tacit acknowledgement that her argument fails if you consider the simple case of transgender women who are attracted to men. She says:

“One can think of homosexual MtF transsexuals as the most feminine of gay men, persons who are so naturally feminine that it is easier and more satisfying for them to live in the world as women than as men.”

 

I include this quote as an example of Dr Lawrence’s willingness to make pat, apparently post hoc rationalizations whenever evidence contradicts her theory. She roughly supports this statement with several references from the 1980s, plus one from 1997, eras not known for their appreciation of the full range of possible gender identity. Similarly she makes no comment on non-binary gender, a growing set of identities and expressions that provides counter-evidence to the supposed prevalence of ETLE as a driver for people who are not cisgender.

There are many other problems with Dr Lawrence’s paper. These include:

  • General misuse of terminology, including use of the term “error” in ETLE. She assumes that fetishes are the result of “mental dysfunction” and therefore use of the word error “reflects an objective assessment, not a subjective or moralistic one”. She specifically rejects the phrase “erotic target location variant”, which is preferred by other researchers.
  • Misgendering of trans people. It’s bad in this paper but worse on her website, where for example she repeatedly refers to a transgender women as “he”.
  • Consideration of the long-debunked theory that fetishistic behaviour might be linked to childhood head injuries. (She dishonestly presents this geriatric idea as a straw man to be dismantled later on.)
  • The suggestion that “sexual inexperience” and “lack of social confidence” predispose men to fetishism.
  • And many, many others.

It’s no surprise that Dr Lawrence’s screed failed to have an impact on the formulation of the DSM-5, and that she remains a fringe figure in her field. Yet her work, some of it at least, has a lot of value. Science always needs contrarians, and her willingness to challenge the status quo can encourage work that may lead to improvements in such a complex field. It is also laudable that her research is apparently inspired by consideration of her own condition as an autogynephilic transsexual: it gives her work poignancy and legitimacy.

Unfortunately those qualities are not present in her section on furries. ETLE is a sound concept to help think about people who are autoplushophiles, but it should be obvious to any vaguely-informed observer that such descriptions don’t apply to furry as a whole.

Dr Lawrence’s set of references tell the story:

  • That Vanity Fair article (2001)
  • That Salon article (2000)
  • An episode of Entourage
  • A book titled Deviant desires: Incredibly strange sex (billed as “lavishly illustrated”)
  • Plus two newspaper articles, from 2000 and 2007 (one of which doesn’t reference plushophilia, and the other adopts a dreary sneering and titillating attitude towards sex)

It would be hard to imagine a lazier collection of references. I can’t see how her research on furries meets the standard for a high school essay, never mind a paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Dr Lawrence’s furry section starts with the description of a man who masturbates using plush animals, and has the fantasy of becoming a plush animal himself. On its own, this seems like a valid, uncomplicated example to explore ETLE and autoplushophilia. However Dr Lawrence goes further, using her references to classify all furries as “persons who display sexual attraction to plush animals, engage in sexual behavior while impersonating such animals, or both“. She states that fursuiting is an example of this, coining the term fursuitism to mark this as a fetish activity. She sees fursuitism as an example of autoplushophilia i.e. the erotic desire to become a stuffed animal.

She does include one caveat, that fursuiting is not always an erotic practice. Her scientific, peer-reviewed reference for this statement? Wikifur.

Despite the obvious and abundant shortcomings of Dr Lawrence’s paper, it will likely lead to further research on furries from a sexology perspective. Interest in further research may be driven by both the utility of ETLE as a mechanism for exploring the genesis of fetishes, and Dr Lawrence’s status as a high-profile contrarian in a complex field. Certainly, of all the many ways that researchers have approached the topic of furry—sociology, psychology, animal geography, feminist theory, and others—sex is a notable absence.

Further research can only be a good thing, not just because it will add to the growing knowledge of what underpins our unique community. It will, we hope, be of a lot more value than Dr Lawrence’s contribution.

You can read more about Dr Anne Lawrence here:
– http://www.annelawrence.com/ (her personal site)
– http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/anne-lawrence.html (a trans resource site that discusses, among other things, Dr Lawrence’s 1997 resignation as an anaesthesiologist after she examined a patient’s genitals without the patient’s permission)

About JM

JM is a horse-of-all-trades who was introduced to furry in his native Australia by the excellent group known collectively as the Perthfurs. JM now helps run [adjective][species] from London, where he is most commonly spotted holding a pint and talking nonsense.

Before posting a comment, please read our Code of Conduct

13 thoughts on “Furry Research: Autoplushophilia and Erotic Target Location Error

  1. I think one of the big problems with her attribution is I just don’t think there are very many “legitimate” peer-reviewed studies about the psychology and sexuality of furries. If you want any mention of them AT ALL in general media, you have to go to the sensationalist portrayals that have been the bulk of our coverage.

    I’m hoping that the silver lining in all this, though, is that the article serves as a jumping-off point for a renewed discussion about how furries operate or form the attachments that we do. I’d be really curious to see our fandom through the lens of legitimate psychology and sexology studies.

    1. I completely agree. Furries are cropping up more and more in research in different fields, and a lot of interesting conclusions have been drawn. But there has been little from a sexology, or even psychology, perspective, which strikes me as being an obvious angle for furry studies.

  2. Wow, christ. Hey, I’m all for folks researching sex and furries, but maybe they should, I dunno, ASK THE FURRIES?

    Most furries I know will fap away to adult furry art, but consider plushies something innocent. And I don’t know any furries who would approve of the term furvert.

    1. Urth, I couldn’t agree with you more. The mere fact that Lawrence uses terms like “furvert” demonstrate that she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. Language is important beyond simple meaning – in some cases, like this, it marks the writer as broadly ignorant about the topic. (On a related note, I have been very careful with my language around the trans issues in this essay – I am an outsider, so I know how important this is to ensure I don’t come across similarly badly. Hopefully I was successful.)

      In this case, Dr Lawrence should have done one of two things: either performed a reasonable level of research before drawing conclusions about furries, or avoid writing about furries at all. Having read her paper and much of her other writing, I find it difficult to see any valid reasons to support her approach here.

    2. The problem about surveys for sexology research is that humans won’t answer these questions truthfully, for conscious and unconscious reasons.

      Alfred Kinsey’s research encountered this same problem.

      1. Krunklehorn – spot on. Here in the UK, the best government estimate place the proportion of gay and lesbian people at 6% (they used this number to estimate the economic benefits for introducing civil union legislation and more recently gay marriage). Yet in the census only 1.5% of people say that they are gay or lesbian. It’s a difficult science.

        There is more on this topic coming from [a][s] in the future.

  3. Well, I’m glad that WikiFur could add an element of peer-reviewed sanity.

    The fun part about such papers (and the articles they are based on) is that inevitably there are papers to be written about how the original authors got it so wrong.

  4. While I can see ETLE as a furry-development theory, it’s not exactly something new. I really ought to do my due diligence, but I’m braindead and past midnight at the moment. If I recall correctly, it was the work of Darryl Bem that specified, in some fashion, how attractions/paraphilias, like furry, can form, though his original intent was explaining homosexuality. His work on the topic is rather old, 1970s at least.
    Where ETLE is kind of mysteriously Freudian, what I’m recalling (which could be Bem :P) identified that an object causes autonomic arousal, often by being unfamiliar. That unspecified arousal is then altered by whether encounters with the object are pleasant or unpleasant. A positive encounter may continue to be explored, leading to more positive encounters, and so forth, until that object is then capable of producing arousal. But if object is too foreign, it can be confusing and produce a negative feedback. Part of the key in that case is it would be similar enough to match prior experience but different enough to cause that arousal. In short, “exotic becomes erotic.”
    In normal circumstances, a person who is typically surrounded by lean, healthy people may find an unusual attraction to someone more heavyset, or vice-versa.
    Applied to furry, the object of an animal-person in some fashion still retrains the basic humanoid form, but it adds the unusual additional features like ears and tails, or a different color beyond the expected skin tone range. It is “exotic,” and if it is handled well, it may also become erotic, and the person seeks out other experiences from there.

    1. Hi Wolioon

      Thanks for the tip about Daryl Bem. His name and work is new to me. I’ve found his paper, which pleasingly is available in full online (thereby saving me a trip to the library) – https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/roney/james/other%20pdf%20readings/Bem%25201996%2520Exotic%2520becomes%2520erotic.pdf. Your recollections on Bem, at least on my lightning skim-read of his paper and ideas, seem correct.

      His paper is from 1996, not the 1970s, which means that it was published after Blanchard’s introduction of ETLE. Interestingly Bem references a couple of Blanchard’s papers but not ETLE.

      Fascinating stuff! I’ll definitely have a close read of Bem’s paper and ideas, and may well write about it here on [a][s] at some point in the future. I have another piece already written on furry & sexology, and while we won’t publish that anytime soon (for a few reasons), a piece on Bem’s work might make a nice companion article. Unless you wanted to write about Bem’s work of course…

      Anyway, thanks for the comment. I’m always interested in a furry origin theory, although of course no one idea can fully account for everyone and everything in our diverse community. On the plus side, it gives us plenty to talk about here at [a][s].

      1. Huh. Must have been a different Bem from women’s studies in the 60s-70s then. Glad to have inspired you! I’ll continue to appreciate the rather sincere outlook on the furry experience on [a][s]. :)

  5. There’s just one thing I don’t clearly understand.

    I quote: “Dr Lawrence proposes that furries are an “uncomplicated” version of ETLE. Furries, she says, are sexually attracted to stuffed animals, and that fursuiting (or as she calls it, fursuitism) is an attempt to transform into an erotic ideal, i.e. a stuffed animal. Furries are therefore autoplushophiles”.

    In my opinion, that’s not totally correct. It’s like saying that every furry has an interest in a fursuit, and this interest is solely sexual. Also, this means that every furry is attracted to stuffed animals with a desire to have sexual experiences with them.
    I think it’s curious that there’s no mention to Zoophilia, for example, or to some transformation fetish.

    A couple years ago I held a panel about fetishes at a local con and, while searching for information, I’ve found out that only 1% of furries declare themselves as plushophiles, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plushophilia ) while the zoophile are about 18% of all furries ( http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Furry_Survey#Zoophilia ).

    Beside that, I don’t really believe in the ETLE theory, thinking the conditioning theory better describes why fetishes exists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *