Erotic target identity inversion theory and arousal patterns in macrophilia (Part 2)
A systematic study of macrophilia in a large internet sample of 998 adult macrophiles, investigating arousal patterns and testing erotic target identity inversion theory.
⬅️ Previous part
In the previous part, I introduced the study, described the methods, and reported the demographics of the participants.
📊 Results
This analysis is based on the data of the 934 adult natal male respondents.
🏹 External attraction
Arousal in macrophilia does not necessarily stem from a sexual attraction to giants in the conventional sense of desiring sexual intercourse with them. In fact, arousal often stems from the element of size difference itself, from various situations—including sexual acts—that result from the size difference and serve to emphasize it, or from the processes that originate the size difference in the first place (i.e. growing and shrinking to surreal sizes).
Nevertheless, most macrophiles have a preference for their erotic targets in these situations—something analogous to sexual orientation. For the sake of simplicity, the questions evaluating this preference were formulated in terms of external attraction. Respondents were presumed to have an intuitive understanding of what was being measured when they were asked to rate their agreement on a five-point Likert scale with the following statements:
I'm attracted to bigger males (e.g. male giants).
I'm attracted to bigger females (e.g. female giants).
The Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree) was reduced to a binary variable that determined the existence of external attraction if agreement was expressed.
Most (71.2%) of the natal male respondents were exclusively attracted to female giants, very few (2.9%) were exclusively attracted to male giants, some (23.3%) were attracted to both, and very few (2.6%) reported attraction to neither.
In those who reported attraction to both male and female giants, preference was determined to exist if attraction to one was rated as “strongly agree” while attraction to the other was only rated as “agree”. Most (60.5%) still preferred female giants, very few (6.0%) preferred male giants, and the rest (33.5%) had equal preference.
Sexual orientation relative to natal sex tended to match the reported external attraction to giants: 90% of heterosexual natal males reported an exclusive attraction to female giants, and 84% of homosexual natal males reported an exclusive attraction to male giants. Conversely, 80% of natal males who reported exclusive attraction to female giants were heterosexual, and 78% of those who reported exclusive attraction to male giants were homosexual.
Some respondents who reported external attraction to both male and female giants added caveats in the open comment space, clarifying that their main attraction was to female giants but that they also experienced some attraction to male giants in the context of a giant couple who interacts with the tiny. This can happen in masochistic fantasies where the giant couple dominates the tiny, such as in cuckolding scenarios for instance.
Numerous respondents mentioned that they also experienced arousal by the idea of femboy giants (i.e. extremely feminine male giants) or futa giants (i.e. female giants with a penis), and some even said that this was what they preferred, which shows that gynandromorphophilic preferences1 can be expressed in macrophilia.
💘 Internalized attraction
Participants were asked to estimate on a five-point frequency scale (never, rarely, occasionally, frequently, and very frequently) how often they have been aroused by the idea of being male and female giants. A composite variable (automacrophilia) was taken as the maximum frequency of arousal between the two.
A majority of natal males (73.2% [70.3%–76.0%]) experienced automacrophilia at least rarely, approximately half (51.7% [48.5%–54.9%]) experienced it at least occasionally, and a minority (30.1% [27.2%–33.1%]) experienced it frequently or very frequently.
To test whether automacrophilia could be explained as an internalized form of attraction, I investigated three aspects:
The correlation of automacrophilia with external attraction to giants: are natal males who experience automacrophilia also externally attracted to giants?
The frequency distribution of automacrophilia: is it distributed in a pattern consistent with observations on internalized attraction in other paraphilias?
The specificity of automacrophilia: does the internal giant in automacrophilia match the external attraction to giants in terms of gender preference?
1️⃣ Automacrophilia vs. attraction to giants
Of the 684 natal males who reported experiencing automacrophilia at least rarely, only 44 (6.4% [4.8%–8.5%]) did not report external attraction to giants. The fact that the overwhelming majority (93.6% [91.5%–95.2%]) reported attraction to giants is consistent with the explanation of automacrophilia as an internalized attraction.
The questionnaire only asked participants about their current external attraction patterns. It is therefore possible that the small minority of natal males who reported automacrophilia without current external attraction to giants did experience that attraction in the past. If this speculation is true, it would mean that attraction in these individuals was completely internalized, to the point of overshadowing the original external attraction, similar to observations in autogynephilia.2
2️⃣ Distribution of automacrophilia
If automacrophilia were a paraphilic phenomenon distinct from macrophilia, we would expect to see a bimodal distribution in its frequency, with two distinct peaks at either end of the scale and a dip in the middle. Visual inspection of the histogram, however, shows that the frequency has a relatively even distribution.
Furthermore, the high rate of automacrophilia is consistent with the explanation of an internalized attraction. Studies other paraphilias with unusual erotic targets reported that internalized attraction had a significantly higher prevalence in those paraphilias compared with autogynephilia in men who are attracted to women.3 This is believed to be a reflection of the tendency of paraphilias to co-occur.
3️⃣ Specificity of automacrophilia
When the frequency scale is linearly coded between 0 (= never) and 1 (= very frequently), the following is observed in natal males who experience automacrophilia at least rarely:
In those who are exclusively attracted to male giants (N = 22), the mean frequency of arousal by the idea of being a male vs. a female giant is 0.53 [0.42–0.65] (slightly more than occasionally) vs. 0.09 [0.02–0.16] (virtually never). This difference is highly significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test: W = 14, p < 4e-4).
In those who are exclusively attracted to female giants (N = 461), the mean frequency of arousal by the idea of being a male vs. a female giant is 0.32 [0.29–0.34] (slightly more than rarely) vs. 0.41 [0.37–0.44] (slightly less than occasionally). This difference is also highly significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test: W = 1.6e5, p < 6e-5).
These observations are consistent with the patterns that would be expected from an internalized attraction:
Natal males who are exclusively attracted to female giants and who experience automacrophilia should preferentially be aroused by the idea of being a female giant (i.e. complete correspondence with the erotic target in the size and gender attributes), but they should also be aroused by the idea of being a male giant (i.e. partial correspondence with the erotic target in the size attribute only).
In contrast, automacrophilia in natal males who are exclusively attracted to male giants should manifest universally as arousal by the idea of being a male giant, as there is no mismatch in the gender attribute in this case.
📌 Conclusion
💡 Third finding:
Observations on automacrophilia—arousal by the idea of being giant—support its explanation as an internalized form of attraction to giants rather than a paraphilic phenomenon distinct from macrophilia.
👍 Leave a like on this post and tell me your thoughts about it in the comments.
➡️ Next part
In the next part, I test predictions from ETII theory in macrophilia to see if the empirical data support the theory’s validity.
Hsu, Kevin J., et al. (2016). Who are gynandromorphophilic men? Characterizing men with sexual interest in transgender women. Psychological Medicine, 46(4), 819–827.
Blanchard, Ray (1992). Nonmonotonic Relation of Autogynephilia and Heterosexual Attraction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101(2), 271–276.
Bailey, J. Michael, Hsu, Kevin J., & Jang, Henry H. (2023). Elaborating and Testing Erotic Target Identity Inversion Theory in Three Paraphilic Samples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1–19.
Great work. I have some suggestions/requests for future studies. Please email me: profjmb@gmail.com