Somnophilia: Examining Its Various Forms and Associated Constructs

Abstract

Somnophilia refers to the interest in having sex with a sleeping person. Using an online sample of 437 participants, the present study provides the first empirical examination of somnophilia, its various forms, and theorized correlates. Participants completed the newly developed Somnophilia Interest and Proclivity Scale, which comprises three subscales (active consensual, passive consensual, and active nonconsensual somnophilia). To test hypotheses about the convergent and divergent validity of different paraphilic interests, participants also completed scales measuring necrophilic, rape-related, and sadistic/masochistic sexual fantasies, rape proclivity, and the need for sexual dominance/submission. Male participants scored higher than females on all scales except the passive subscale. For both males and females, each subscale was associated most strongly with conceptually congruent variables. These results support existing theoretical assumptions about somnophilia, as well as offering newer insights, such as distinguishing between active and passive somnophilia. Limitations and implications for further research are discussed.

Keywords

somnophilia necrophilia paraphilia biastophilia sexual fantasy dormaphilia

Introduction

Somnophilia—derived from the Latin word “somnus” (meaning “sleep”) and the Greek word “philia” (meaning “love”)—refers to a sexual interest in engaging in sexual activity with a sleeping person (Milner et al., 2008). Although somnophilia has not received any direct empirical attention, a number of descriptive case studies and conceptual papers have highlighted some consistent assumptions—mainly that somnophilia is linked to necrophilia (Calef & Weinshel, 1972; Fedoroff et al., 1997; Peck, 2006; Pettigrew, 2017) and nonconsensual behaviors (Griffiths, 2014; Knafo, 2015). We argue that these assumptions—which we outline in more detail below—position somnophilia as a topic for empirical inquiry, providing the impetus for the present study.

What Is Somnophilia?

Somnophilia generally refers to a sexual interest in having sexual activity with a person who is asleep. However, there are some definitional inconsistencies within the literature. For example, Pettigrew (2017) states that somnophilia is more commonly referred to as Sleeping Beauty Syndrome. This overlap in terms appears to have originated in the work of John Money, who, in 1986, defined both somnophilia and Sleeping Beauty Syndrome as a “paraphilia of the marauding/predatory type in which erotic arousal and facilitation or attainment of orgasm are responsive to, and dependent on, intruding upon and awakening a sleeping stranger with erotic caresses, including oral sex, not involving force or violence” (p. 270). However, Oeverland (2015) notes that “classical somnophilia” (i.e., sex with someone who is asleep) is distinct from Sleeping Beauty Syndrome, as the latter (first described by Calef & Weinshel, 1972) refers to sexual arousal that is dependent upon, or increased by, “the sleeping person waking up during the sexual contact.” On this basis, Money’s (1986) definition would pertain only to Sleeping Beauty Syndrome as it centers on the sleeping individual waking up.

Griffiths (2014) noted that somnophilia is also referred to as an interest in sexual activity with an unconscious person (e.g., Lauerma, 2016). Here, somnophilia is not restricted to sleeping individuals but is rather viewed in a broader context. From this perspective, the abuse of an unconscious person, such as a drunk person or someone under the influence of a “date rape” drug (e.g., gamma-hydroxybutyrate or GHB—a depressant that can induce a sedative effect) could be regarded as somnophilic, especially if sexual arousal is gained from the passivity of the individual being abused (Pettigrew, 2017). Griffiths (2014) suggests that the definitional shift to unconsciousness may be a response to the rise in drug-facilitated sexual offenses.

These varying definitions of somnophilia raise some interesting conceptual questions. However, the lack of empirical research makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions as to the most accurate description of somnophilia. Nevertheless, for the present study, we define somnophilia as a sexual interest in engaging in sexual activity with a sleeping person.

How Common Is Somnophilia?

Somnophilia has been termed a rare paraphilia (Lauerma, 2016). Yet, to the authors’ knowledge, no empirical studies have directly examined the prevalence of somnophilia per se in either community or forensic populations. A study by Joyal et al. (2015) did, however, provide some insight. Using an online sample of 1,516 community adults (799 females; 717 males), they examined the prevalence of 55 different sexual fantasies. Fantasies about “sexually abusing a person who is drunk, asleep, or unconscious” were found to be used more frequently by males than females (22.6% vs. 10.8%, respectively). As Joyal et al. (2015) note, the prevalence of these sexual fantasies in women was statistically unusual (<16%), which was not the case for men. It should be highlighted, however, that the fantasy item was framed in offending terms (i.e., “abusing a person who is drunk, asleep, or unconscious”). Had it been framed in neutral or consensual terms, the results may have been different. Moreover, the fantasy item was not specific to sleep, but instead included two other passive states (i.e., drunk and unconscious). Thus, the specific rate of somnophilic fantasies (involving just a sleeping person) cannot be accurately established, as any participants with sexual fantasies about sex with a drunk person, for example, would have also responded to this item.

Somnophilia and Necrophilia

The most prominent assumption derived from the existing conceptual literature and case studies is that somnophilia is linked to necrophilia; that is, a sexual interest in dead people (Calef & Weinshel, 1972; Fedoroff et al., 1997; Peck, 2006; Pettigrew, 2017). The main argument is that somnophilia lies along the same continuum as necrophilia, as they both involve a sexual interaction with a passive person (Pettigrew, 2017). Fedoroff et al. (1997) proposed that this attraction to passivity may stem from a fear of rejection. In a recent case study documenting the link between somnophilia and necrophilia, Pettigrew (2017) described how “fearing rejection and ridicule” strengthened a male client’s attraction toward “complete passivity” (p. 353).

Some authors have theorized further about the link between somnophilia and necrophilia. One idea is that somnophilic behavior functions as a substitute for acting out necrophilic fantasies. For example, Calef and Weinshel (1972) proposed that somnophilic acts provide a way of gaining sexual arousal without committing crimes associated with necrophilia. Oeverland (2015) recently extended this point. He highlighted that necrophilic pornography is difficult to find and, thus, proposed that somnophilic pornography provides sexual gratification for people with necrophilia. That is, it allows them to project their necrophilic fantasies on to lifeless (albeit sleeping) people. Also, Pettigrew (2017) proposed that somnophilia can sometimes progress into necrophilia. In his case study, Pettigrew (2017) argued that this progression was due to the client’s desire to keep his victim for longer without the fear of discovery or rejection (e.g., upon awakening).

Somnophilia and Sexual Assault

Another common view is that somnophilia is associated with nonconsensual sex (Knafo, 2015). This view appears to have two main origins. The first relates to the apparent behavioral similarity between somnophilic acts and drug-facilitated sexual assaults (i.e., both involve sexual activity with someone who is in a sleep state). As mentioned earlier, some authors have made explicit reference to the possible link between somnophilia and drug-facilitated sexual assaults (Griffiths, 2014). For example, in a descriptive case study, Lauerma (2016) described a male with somnophilia who used vaginally administered triazolam to render women unconscious to sexually abuse them. Also, in recent years, a number of drug-facilitated sexual assault cases referring to somnophilia or “sleep fetish” have surfaced in news-based media, including the Bill Cosby case. Given the behavioral overlap between somnophilic acts and drug-facilitated sexual assault, additional evidence (beyond the sexual act itself) is likely to be helpful in classifying a sexual assault as being motivated by somnophilia or not. For example, in his case study, Lauerma (2016) noted that the client admitted to having sexual fantasies about sleeping females. Thus, in this instance, a somnophilic interest appeared to be present.

The second observation relates to the motivation that underpins somnophilia. Money (1986) referred to somnophilia as a predatory paraphilia “categorized by taking something without consent” (p. 51), while Lauerma (2016) stated that people with somnophilia are attracted to the idea of people being unable to resist their advances. Oeverland (2015) notes that this latter view of somnophilia (i.e., being underpinned by an attraction to a defenseless and “easy” victim) is similar to biastophilia (i.e., the sexual interest in nonconsensual sex). This overlap raises the question of whether somnophilia is distinct from (but related to) nonconsensual sex, or whether it is integrally underpinned by an attraction to nonconsenting sex. It also highlights the question of whether somnophilia increases the risk of sexual offending. Also related to this observation is the view that some cases of somnophilia are linked to sexual sadism (Calef & Weinshel, 1972). For example, Fedoroff et al. (1997) proposed that somnophilia can be underpinned by the motivation to enact sadistic sexual interests. However, the link between sexual sadism and somnophilia has not been empirically tested through quantitative research.

Other Facets of Somnophilia

An examination of online forum threads dedicated to the topic of somnophilia highlights two aspects of somnophilia that appear to have been largely ignored in the literature. The first of these is “consensual somnophilia.” As discussed above, the literature on somnophilia is largely concerned with its link to nonconsensual sex. There is a lack of case studies examining somnophilia within consensual contexts. However, this facet of somnophilia is discussed by many in online forums. For example, one male with somnophilia on Reddit explained that his experience of sexual arousal was only gained from consensual somnophilic fantasies and behaviors. This is important to consider because, as Tierney (2017) notes, “a partner that is familiar with the conditions of somnophilia and gives prior consent to this type of behaviour is very different than a stranger.” Arguably, distinguishing consensual and nonconsensual somnophilia will provide grounds for developing a fuller understanding of somnophilia, rather than one biased toward a possibly stigmatizing standpoint relating solely to abuse and harm.

The second facet of somnophilia evident in online forums is the interest in being the recipient of sexual activity while asleep. Money (1986) noted that there is no technical term for this facet but asserted that it occurs more in fantasy than reality. Knafo (2015) argued that these fantasies reflect the desire “to reach a state of complete surrender to their partners” (p. 863). Beyond this, the academic literature has remained silent on this aspect of somnophilia. However, in online forums, many people report having a sexual interest in being the passive recipient. They also explain how they find it difficult to act upon this interest (consensually) with their partners because they either wake up during the act or their partner is apprehensive to play the active role. This highlights an interesting area for empirical investigation, as this passive facet of somnophilia may be a distinct (sleep-related) paraphilia associated with different functions and correlates.

Present Study

The existing literature reveals a number of propositions about somnophilia, most of which have forensically relevant implications (i.e., links to necrophilia, nonconsensual sex, sexual sadism). Although these propositions have been documented in a few published case studies (e.g., Fedoroff et al., 1997; Lauerma, 2016; Peck, 2006; Pettigrew, 2017), they have not been addressed or corroborated empirically. Also, online forums have provided some important insights about somnophilia, most of which have received almost no discussion within the literature. In light of this, the purpose of the present study was to provide the first empirical investigation into somnophilia, facilitated by the development and use of a new tool for assessing a sexual interest in and proclivity toward somnophilic behavior. Following validation of the measure, we aimed to test the following hypotheses:

Nonconsensual sexual behavior

Hypothesis (H1a): Biastophilic fantasies will be associated with active consensual and nonconsensual somnophilia.

Hypothesis (H1b): Fantasies of being raped will be associated with consensual passive somnophilia.

Hypothesis (H1c): In males only, rape proclivity will be associated with active consensual and nonconsensual somnophilia.

Necrophilia

Hypothesis (H2): Necrophilic fantasies will be associated with active consensual and nonconsensual somnophilia.

Sexual dominance/sadism and sexual submission/masochism

Hypothesis (H3a): Both the need for dominance and sadistic sexual fantasies will be associated with active consensual and nonconsensual somnophilia.

Hypothesis (H3b): Both the need for submission and masochistic sexual fantasies will be associated with consensual passive somnophilia.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited online via various social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), as well as online forums focused on somnophilia (e.g., FetLife, Reddit). Study adverts invited potential participants to take part in a study on somnophilia (with the definition provided). In total, 445 participants were recruited. However, eight participants did not complete the entire study and so were removed from the analyses. This resulted in a sample of 437 participants (204 males, 219 females, 14 unknown), who were aged between 18 and 65 years (M = 26.96, SD = 9.05). Male participants were found to be significantly older (M = 29.24, SD = 10.4) than female participants (M = 25.09, SD = 7.27), t(360.31) = 4.73, p < .05. The majority of the sample reported being in a relationship (58%, n = 252), followed by those identifying as single (34%, n = 150). Thirteen (3%) stated that they were dating, with 5% (n = 22) reporting being in a polyamorous or “complicated” relationship. Of the full sample, 65% (n = 282) identified as heterosexual, 23% (n = 101) as bisexual, and 4% (n = 17) as homosexual. The remaining 9% (n = 37) comprised individuals who identified as pansexual or asexual, with one person identifying as having a somnophilic interest.

Measures

The Somnophilic Interest and Proclivity Scale (SIPS)

The SIPS is a vignette-based measure designed to assess a sexual interest in and a proclivity to engage in somnophilic behavior (see the appendix for full scale). Using the format of other existing scales, such as the Interest in Child Molestation Scale (Gannon & O’Connor, 2011) and the Multiple-Perpetrator Rape Interest Scale (Alleyne et al., 2014), the SIPS comprised five vignettes. The vignettes were written using ambiguous pronouns (i.e., “they/them”) so as to not presuppose or restrict the vignettes to people identifying as a particular gender or sexual orientation. As a result, it would be easier for participants to imagine themselves in the described situation.

The content of the vignettes was derived from published case studies and information provided by people with somnophilia in online forums. This resulted in two types of scenarios: those depicting active somnophilic acts (where the protagonist is engaging in sexual activity with a sleeping person) and passive somnophilic acts (where the protagonist is the recipient of sexual activity while asleep). Two vignettes involved active consensual behaviors and two involved passive consensual behaviors. An active nonconsensual vignette that depicted an opportunistic, nonviolent scenario was also included. A nonconsensual passive vignette was not included as the idea of having (and assessing) a proclivity to be an unwitting victim of somnophilic behavior was deemed conceptually problematic.

Following each scenario, participants answer the following questions: (a) “In this situation, how sexually aroused would you be?” (1 = not at all aroused to 5 = very strongly aroused); (b) “In this situation, would you have done the same?” (1 = would definitely not have done the same to 5 = would definitely have done the same); and (c) “In this situation, how much would you enjoy getting your way?” (1 = would not have enjoyed it at all to 5 = would greatly enjoy it). Thus, the SIPS provides a sexual arousal, behavioral propensity, and enjoyment score for each scenario. A factor analysis was conducted using Varimax rotation. Based on the eigenvalues, cumulative variance, and scree plot, three distinct factors were extracted, accounting for 85% of the variance. These three factors reflected the three types of somnophilic acts identified at the development stage of the SIPS (see Table 1). On this basis, and the fact that all intercorrelations between items were in a positive direction, the three scenario types can be regarded as individual subscales. Thus, a total score for each subscale (i.e., consensual active, consensual passive, and nonconsensual somnophilia) can be calculated by summing the relevant sexual arousal, behavioral propensity, and enjoyment items. Finally, a total score can be computed by summing all items across all five scenarios.

Table 1.

Structure Matrix of the SIPS.

SIPS subscale	SIPS item	Rotated loadings
SIPS subscale	SIPS item	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Passive consensual	Arousal (Scenario 2)	.927
	Enjoyment (Scenario 2)	.912
	Arousal (Scenario 5)	.909
	Enjoyment (Scenario 5)	.899
	Behavioral Propensity (Scenario 2)	.890
	Behavioral Propensity (Scenario 5)	.855
Active consensual	Arousal (Scenario 4)		.882
	Behavioral Propensity (Scenario 4)		.881
	Enjoyment (Scenario 4)		.860
	Arousal (Scenario 1)		.856
	Behavioral Propensity (Scenario 1)		.819
	Enjoyment (Scenario 1)		.790
Nonconsensual	Behavioral Propensity (Scenario 3)			.877
	Enjoyment (Scenario 3)			.822
	Arousal (Scenario 3)			.671

Note. SIPS = Somnophilic Interest and Proclivity Scale.

Short Rape Proclivity Scale

This scale comprised two vignettes detailing an acquaintance and stranger rape scenario (Abrams et al., 2003). Each scenario is followed by five questions assessing the behavioral propensity, sexual arousal, enjoyment, and perceived victim enjoyment (one for women in general and the other for the woman in the scenario). Each question is answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Abrams et al. (2003) report good internal consistency for the composite rape proclivity score (α = .75), as well as in a follow-up study (α = .78; Viki et al., 2006), which was used in this study.

Sexual Functions Inventory—Need for sexual dominance and submission

This component of the Sexual Functions Inventory consists of 16 statements rated in terms of their importance for engaging in sexual behavior (Nelson, 1979). Each item is rated on a 4-point scale, ranging from 1 = not at all important to 4 = very important. Eight items pertain to a “need for sexual dominance” (e.g., “Because, like many people, I enjoy the conquest”), while the other eight pertain to a “need for sexual submission” (e.g., “Because I enjoy the feeling of giving in to my partner”). Davoudian (2011) reports good internal consistencies for both the Sexual Dominance (α = .82) and Sexual Submission subscales (α = .79).

Sexual Fantasy Questionnaire (SFQ)

The SFQ consists of 93 fantasy themes (Gray et al., 2003). Participants are asked to rate how often they sexually fantasize about each theme. Pertinent to this study, the SFQ includes items related to rape (i.e., “raping someone,” “being raped”), necrophilia (i.e., “sex with dead person”), sexual sadism (i.e., “torturing others,” “physically hurting the person you are having sex with”), and masochism (i.e., “being physically hurt,” “being bound or tied up”). In the SFQ, participants respond using a 4-point scale (0 = no sexual interest, 1 = slight sexual interest, 2 = have fantasized about frequently, and 3 = cannot get it out of my mind). However, Maile (2015) changed this to a 5-point scale to provide a wider range of responses and increase sensitivity. He also altered to wording to provide consistency across the scale (0 = have never fantasized about, 1 = have fantasized about once or twice, 2 = have fantasized about several times, 3 = have fantasized about frequently, 4 = have fantasized about very frequently). For the present study, this updated scale was used. Also, two sleep-related items (i.e., “sex with someone who is asleep,” “someone having sex with you while you are asleep”) were added. The 13 sadistic items and 13 masochistic items were summed to create a score for “sadistic fantasies” and “masochistic fantasies,” respectively (Cronbach’s αs >.90; see Table 3).

Procedure

Ethical approval for this anonymous online study was granted by a university in the United Kingdom. After clicking on the Qualtrics link, participants were presented with a brief outlining the nature of the study. Those who consented to take part were then asked to provide demographic information (age, gender, sexual orientation, relationship status). Following this, participants completed the SIPS, followed by the other scales in a randomized order. After completing all measures, participants were debriefed and thanked for their time.

Results

Using Mahalanobis distance values, the data were screened for multivariate outliers as a means to account for any participants who were not paying attention or responding appropriately across all the measures. Twelve participants had a Mahalanobis distance score greater than the critical value, χ²(12) = 32.91, p < .001. These participants were removed from the data set. Following this, we conducted a univariate normality check for the examined variables, which were each found to be within an acceptable range (kurtosis = between -7 and +7; skewness = between -2 and +2; see Byrne, 2010; Hair et al., 2010). Thus, the final sample comprised 425 participants. The descriptive statistics for the SIPS and the other measures are displayed in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 2.

Descriptive Data for the SIPS Subscales, Including Gender Comparisons and t Test.

SIPS subscale	α	Possible scale range	% any endorsement	M (SD)			Gender comparison
SIPS subscale	α	Possible scale range	% any endorsement	Full sample(N = 425)	Males(n = 197)	Females(n = 215)	t	df	p	d
Active consensual	.96	6–30	82	17.57 (8.88)	21.98 (7.82)	13.63 (7.86)	10.80	410	<.001	1.07
Passive consensual	.97	6–30	87	19.58 (8.87)	20.02 (8.13)	19.02 (9.42)	1.15	408.57	.25	0.11
Nonconsensual	.83	3–15	47	5.37 (3.36)	6.62 (3.71)	4.25 (2.58)	7.47	345.41	<.001	0.74

Note. SIPS = Somnophilic Interest and Proclivity Scale.

Table 3.

Cronbach’s Alpha, Means (SDs), t Test Results, and Possible Scale Range for Other Measures.

Measure	α	Possible scale range	M (SD)			Gender difference (t test)
Measure	α	Possible scale range	Full sample(N = 425)	Males(n = 197)	Females(n = 215)	t	df	p	d
Rape proclivity^a	.82	10−50	—	15.95 (5.97)	—	—	—	—	—
Sexual function
Dominance subscale	.88	8−32	17.49 (5.94)	20.45 (5.61)	14.82 (4.82)	10.80	383.99	<.001	1.08
Submission subscale	.81	8−32	20.11 (5.64)	18.26 (5.24)	21.69 (5.45)	6.46	405	<.001	0.64
SFQ total	.96	0−384	219.88 (56.60)	227.48 (55.44)	211.48 (56.22)	2.88	409	.004	0.29
“Sex with someone who is asleep”	—	0−4	2.44 (1.56)	3.25 (1.56)	1.69 (1.11)	11.59	350.68	<.001	1.15
“Someone having sex with you while you are asleep”	—	0−4	2.77 (1.57)	2.78 (1.47)	2.75 (1.66)	0.19	408.54	.85	0.02
“Being raped”	—	0−4	2.36 (1.48)	1.94 (1.24)	2.68 (1.57)	5.32	400.14	<.001	0.52
“Raping someone”	—	0−4	1.74 (1.16)	2.12 (1.27)	1.37 (0.88)	6.89	346.64	<.001	0.69
“Sex with dead person”	—	0−4	1.11 (0.36)	1.18 (0.46)	1.05 (0.23)	3.74	284.78	<.001	0.37
Sadistic fantasies	.94	0−52	26.03 (12.21)	31.45 (12.18)	20.88 (9.59)	9.71	372.11	<.001	0.96
Masochistic fantasies	.96	0−52	30.68 (15.08)	24.32 (11.30)	35.82 (15.59)	8.58	384.59	<.001	0.84

Note. SFQ = Sexual Fantasy Questionnaire.

Only completed by male participants.

As indicated in Table 2, the SIPS total showed excellent internal consistency, as did each subscale. Also, the rate of any endorsement was high for the consensual subscales, with relatively high mean scores for each. Males showed significantly greater total SIPS scores (M = 48.21, SD = 16.27) than females (M = 37.41, SD = 17.13), t(414) = 6.58, p < .001, d = 0.65. In addition, males scored significantly higher than females on all the subscales (with large effect sizes), except for the passive subscale (see Table 2). Due to these observed gender differences, male and female participants were treated separately in all subsequent analyses.

Convergent Validity

To test the convergent validity of the SIPS, Pearson’s correlations (with a Holm–Bonferroni correction) were run between the SIPS scales and the sleep-related sexual fantasy items that were incorporated into the SFQ (i.e., “sex with someone who is asleep” and “someone having sex with you while you are asleep”). As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the total SIPS score correlated strongly with “sex with somebody who is asleep” for both males and females, respectively. It was also associated strongly with the passive fantasy item “someone having sex with you while you are asleep” for males and particularly females. Sexual fantasies about “sex with somebody who is asleep” correlated most strongly with the active consensual subscale for both men and women, while “someone having sex with you while you are asleep” correlated most strongly with the passive consensual subscale in males and females. Finally, “sex with somebody who is asleep” correlated strongly with the nonconsensual subscale in females and males. “Someone having sex with you while you are asleep” was only associated with the nonconsensual subscale in females. These findings show that the strongest correlations were between corresponding subscales and sexual fantasies, attesting to the convergent (and construct) validity of the SIPS. On this basis, we will now examine the hypothesized correlates of somnophilia.

Table 4.

Intercorrelations Between SIPS Subscales and Related Measures for Male Participants (N = 197).

Measure	SIPS total	Active consensual	Passive consensual	Nonconsensual
SIPS subscales
Active consensual	—	—	—	—
Passive consensual	—	.64***	—	—
Nonconsensual	—	.54***	.14	—
Sexual fantasies items
Sex with someone who is asleep	.73***	.78***	.46***	.52***
Someone having sex with you while you are asleep	.61***	.50***	.70***	.07
Being raped	.36***	.26***	.40***	.13
Raping somebody	.27***	.35***	.01	.40***
Sex with dead person	.14*	.17*	.01	.24**
Sadistic fantasies	.25***	.31***	.10	.22**
Masochistic fantasies	.25**	.11	.42***	−.08
Rape proclivity scale	.26***	.28***	−.01	.57***
Sexual functions scale
Need for dominance	.23**	.29***	.06	.25***
Need for submission	.28***	.15*	.44***	−.07

Note. Raw p values are indicated. Significant correlations after Holm–Bonferroni corrections are in italics. SIPS = Somnophilic Interest and Proclivity Scale.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 5.

Intercorrelations Between SIPS Subscales and Related Measures for Female Participants (N = 219).

Measure	SIPS total	Active consensual	Passive consensual	Nonconsensual
SIPS subscales
Active consensual	—	—	—	—
Passive consensual	—	.58***	—	—
Nonconsensual	—	.59***	.31***	—
Sexual fantasy items
Sex with someone who is asleep	.68***	.77***	.41***	.40***
Someone having sex with you while you are asleep	.79***	.57***	.85***	.31***
Being raped	.55***	.31***	.66***	.21**
Raping somebody	.46***	.55***	.24**	.48***
Sex with dead person	.13	.11	.16*	−.03
Sadistic fantasies	.43***	.53***	.26***	.24***
Masochistic fantasies	.43***	.14*	.65***	−.02
Sexual functions scale
Need for dominance	.34***	.49***	.12	.30***
Need for submission	.40***	.17*	.56***	.05

Note. Raw p values are indicated. Significant correlations after Holm–Bonferroni corrections are in italics. SIPS = Somnophilic Interest and Proclivity Scale.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Hypothesis 1a: Active Consensual and Nonconsensual Somnophilia Will Be Associated With Biastophilic Fantasies

Pearson’s correlations (with a Holm–Bonferroni correction) revealed that sexual fantasies about “raping somebody” showed a moderate relationship with the nonconsensual subscale for both males and females (see Tables 4 and 5). They also correlated positively with the active consensual subscale to a moderate degree for males and strongly for females. This supported Hypothesis 1a. No relationship was observed between biastophilic fantasies and the passive subscale in males or females (after a Holm–Bonferroni correction).

Hypothesis 1b: Fantasies of Being Raped Will Be Associated With Passive Somnophilia

In support of Hypothesis 1b, sexual fantasies about “being raped” were most strongly related to the passive subscales in males and particularly so in females. However, they were also related, albeit to a lesser degree, with the active consensual subscale in both males and females. Also, for females only, fantasies of being raped were associated with the nonconsensual subscale.

Hypothesis 1c: Rape Proclivity Will Be Associated With Active Consensual and Nonconsensual Somnophilia in Males

Although all participants completed the rape proclivity scale, it is written from a male perspective with a female victim and so is not directly applicable to female participants. Therefore, only data obtained from male participants were analyzed. Supporting Hypothesis 1c, rape proclivity was most strongly associated with the Nonconsensual SIPS subscale, as well as the active consensual subscale to a weaker extent. No relationship was found with the passive subscale.

Hypothesis 2: Necrophilic Fantasies Will Be Associated With Active Consensual and Nonconsensual Somnophilia

Following the Holm–Bonferroni correction, male participants demonstrated a positive relationship between necrophilic sexual fantasies and the nonconsensual subscale, supporting Hypothesis 2 (see Table 4). As Table 5 shows, Hypothesis 2 was not supported in relation to female participants, as none of the subscales correlated with necrophilic sexual fantasies (following the Holm–Bonferroni correction).

Hypothesis 3a: Both the Need for Sexual Dominance and Sadistic Sexual Fantasies Will Be Correlated With Active Consensual and Nonconsensual Somnophilia

As Tables 4 and 5 show, both the need for sexual dominance and sadistic sexual fantasies were associated with the active consensual subscale, with stronger coefficients observed in females relative to males. Furthermore, the need for dominance was associated with the nonconsensual subscale in both males and females, with sadistic sexual fantasies also showing a significant correlation in females. These findings largely support Hypothesis 3a. It should also be noted that both variables were not significantly correlated with the passive consensual subscale, except for sadistic sexual fantasies in females.

Hypothesis 3b: Both the Need for Sexual Submission and Masochistic Sexual Fantasies Will Be Correlated With Passive Consensual Somnophilia

In support of Hypothesis 3b, both the need for sexual submission and masochistic sexual fantasies correlated with the passive consensual subscale in both males and females (see Tables 4 and 5). The need for sexual submission and masochistic fantasies were both unrelated to the active and nonconsensual subscales.

Hierarchical Regressions

For each SIPS subscale, a four-stage hierarchical multiple regression was conducted (separately for male and female participants) to determine which conceptually relevant variables explain a statistically significant amount of the variance (above and beyond previously entered variables). As shown in Table 6, necrophilic fantasies were entered at Stage 1 for all three subscales. For Stage 2, fantasies of “raping somebody” (as well as rape proclivity for male participants) were entered into the analysis of the consensual and nonconsensual active subscales. For the passive subscale, fantasies of “being raped” were entered at Stage 2. For Stage 3, “need for dominance” and “sadistic fantasies” were entered for consensual and nonconsensual active somnophilia, while the “need for submission” and “masochistic fantasies” were entered for the passive subscale. Finally, for Stage 4, the active somnophilic fantasy item was entered for active consensual and nonconsensual somnophilia, while the passive somnophilic fantasy item was entered for passive somnophilia. In Table 6, the standardized coefficients relate only to the final step of the analysis. However, we have shown the R² change for each stage. For a fuller description of the results, please see the Supplemental Material.

Table 6.

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for the SIPS Subscales for Both Males and Females.

Independent variables	Male participants (n = 197)			Female participants (n = 208)
Independent variables	Active	Passive	Nonconsensual	Active	Passive	Nonconsensual
Step 1
Necrophilic fantasies	.03	.01	.01	−.03	−.04	−.05
R ²	.03	.001	.05	.01	.03	.001
F	5.86*	0.26	9.98**	2.55	5.37*	.12
Step 2
Fantasies of raping/being raped^a	.04	.08	.10	.09	.06	.32***
Rape proclivity	.03	—	.50***	—	—	—
R ²	.13	.17	.32	.31	.42	.24
∆R²	.10	.16	.27	.29	.40	.24
∆F	11.17***	37.53***	38.16***	87.20***	141.41***	65.38***
Step 3
Sadistic/masochistic^a fantasies	.05	.04	−.21*	.09	.18**	−.27**
Need for dominance/submission^a	.14	.12	.03	.05	.05	.02
R ²	.16	.25	.34	.38	.52	.26
∆R²	.03	.09	.02	.07	.10	.02
∆F	2.80	11.17***	2.80	11.88***	21.55***	2.16
Step 4
Active/passive^a somnophilic fantasies	.73***	.59***	.42***	.64***	.68***	.56***
R ²	.63	.51	.50	.61	.76	.43
∆R²	.48	.26	.16	.23	.23	.18
∆F	242.97***	99.52***	58.36***	117.01***	195.40***	63.41***

Note. All standardized regression coefficients are from the final step in the analyses. SIPS = Somnophilic Interest and Proclivity Scale.

Refers to passive subscale only.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The results of hierarchical regression revealed that the use of active somnophilic fantasies remained the only significant independent variable for the active consensual subscale in both males and females. For the passive subscale, the use of passive somnophilic fantasies remained the only significant independent variable in males, whereas for female participants, the use of passive somnophilic fantasies and masochistic fantasies emerged as significant independent variables. For the active nonconsensual subscale, greater levels of rape proclivity and use of active somnophilic fantasies remained significant independent variables in males, along with the less frequent use of sadistic fantasies (i.e., a negative coefficient). For females, the use of biastophilic fantasies and active somnophilic fantasies emerged as significant independent variables, along with the less frequent use of sadistic fantasies also. Whenever multiple significant independent variables were observed at the final stage, somnophilic-related fantasies always remained the most strongly associated variable.

Discussion

In this study, we assessed participants’ interest and proclivity to engage in active somnophilia (i.e., having sex with a sleeping person), in both consensual and nonconsensual contexts, as well as consensual passive somnophilia (i.e., being the recipient of sexual activity while asleep). This was achieved using a newly developed measure termed the SIPS, which showed convergence with corresponding sleep-related sexual fantasies. The SIPS data were then used to test the main theorized assumptions about somnophilia present within the literature. These included whether each aspect of somnophilia is associated with (a) necrophilic fantasies, (b) rape-related variables (i.e., biastophilic fantasies and fantasies of being raped, as well as rape proclivity in males), and (c) sexually sadistic/masochistic fantasies and the need for sexual dominance/submission.

Males were found to have higher scores than females on all SIPS subscales, except for the passive subscale. This extends upon Joyal et al.’s (2015) finding, as the present gender difference was focused more specifically on somnophilia (i.e., being asleep) and included consensual somnophilic acts (not just abusive/nonconsensual behaviors). Given these results, male and female participants were subsequently analyzed separately. For both males and females, correlation and regression analyses showed that active somnophilic fantasies were most strongly associated with both active somnophilic subscales, while passive somnophilic fantasies were most strongly associated with the passive subscale. These results provide convergent and construct validity for the SIPS, along with the factor analysis results.

The findings also provided some support for the link between somnophilia and necrophilia (Calef & Weinshel, 1972; Fedoroff et al., 1997; Peck, 2006; Pettigrew, 2017). That is, necrophilic fantasies were associated with the nonconsensual SIPS subscale in male participants. However, necrophilic fantasies did not remain significant for the active SIPS subscales after the first stage of the hierarchical regression. Future research could look to see whether necrophilic fantasies play a mediating role in the link between somnophilic fantasies and somnophilic proclivity. Also, given that the lack of consent potentially plays a role, future research could examine whether the link between necrophilia and nonconsensual somnophilia is driven by having a sexual interest in passive targets (Pettigrew, 2017, 2019b).

The results also revealed that nonconsensual active somnophilia (and consensual active somnophilia to a lesser degree) is associated with biastophilic sexual fantasies in both males and females (as well as rape proclivity in males). These results provide support for the view that somnophilia is linked to an interest in nonconsensual sex (Lauerma, 2016; Pettigrew, 2019a). However, the results of the hierarchical regression revealed that rape proclivity in males and biastophilic fantasies in females remained significant independent variables for nonconsensual active somnophilia only. Thus, while rape-related variables are correlated with each form of somnophilia, they may play a more central role in nonconsensual somnophilia. These findings suggest that it may be beneficial to distinguish between an interest in consensual and nonconsensual somnophilic behavior. Although both are primarily driven by somnophilic fantasies, having an interest and proclivity to engage in biastophilic behaviors may shape someone’s somnophilic interest so that it includes a lack of consent.

Sadistic fantasies and the need for sexual dominance were correlated positively with both forms of active somnophilia. Interestingly, however, the hierarchical regression showed that using sadistic fantasies less frequently was a significant independent variable of nonconsensual somnophilia in both males and females. This perhaps suggests that an interest in more aggressive sexual acts is not linked to nonconsensual somnophilia. In light of these results, it could be argued that that nonconsensual somnophilia is driven by an underlying interest in “passivity, power, and the elimination, in degrees, of the possibility of rejection” (Pettigrew, 2017, p. 353), rather than an overt interest in sexual aggression. Further research is needed to understand the role of sexual sadism in relation to somnophilia. Perhaps it functions as a mediator between somnophilic fantasies and consensual somnophilia proclivity while playing less of a role in the proclivity to engage in nonconsensual somnophilia.

As expected, passive somnophilia was associated most strongly with passive-oriented variables. For example, sexual fantasies about being the recipient of sex while asleep was the strongest correlate in both males and females. In addition, fantasies of being raped were associated with passive somnophilia, particularly in females. It is possible that those who are aroused by being the passive recipient are striving to be totally submissive to their partner (Knafo, 2015). Indeed, the need for sexual submission and the use of masochistic fantasies were both strongly correlated with the passive subscale. Also, masochistic fantasies emerged as a significant independent variable in the hierarchal regression for females. However, passive somnophilic fantasies remained the strongest independent variable in the regression analysis for both males and females. Of course, all these data are correlational and so do not imply causal relationships between the variables.

Limitations

Although this study provides some important and useful insights into somnophilia, a number of limitations should be noted. First, we did not ask participants whether they actually engage in consensual somnophilic behavior. Doing so would have offered the opportunity to compare those who act upon their interest against those who do not. Further to this, it would have been useful to have asked participants where they had seen the study posted. From our data, we were unable to isolate and quantify how many participants were collected from fetish sites and forums related to somnophilia. This information would have helped to establish an approximate prevalence rate of somnophilia within the general population versus those recruited from somnophilia-related sites. Moreover, the study was advertised as being about somnophilia and so the biases that come with recruiting a self-selected sample are likely present in the results. Thus, some caution is warranted when drawing conclusions from the findings. Related to this, many of the participants in this self-selected sample are unlikely to have a sexual offending background as such individuals commonly have internet use prohibitions. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized to those who have actually engaged in paraphilic offending of this nature. However, it should be noted that such prohibitions are not universal and may not always be followed by the person with a history of sexual offending. Thus, future research is needed to gain a wider picture of somnophilic-driven offending behavior.

In addition, the consensual active and passive somnophilia subscales of the SIPS were each comprised of two scenarios, both of which involved a romantic partner. The nonconsensual subscale comprised only one scenario, which involved a nonpartner (i.e., housemate). Thus, the SIPS could be amended to include a nonconsensual scenario involving one’s romantic partner for consistency. Similarly, future researchers may want to consider investigating nonconsensual passive somnophilia by developing and using a relevant scenario. We chose not include this in the present study as it was deemed conceptually problematic (i.e., having a proclivity for being a recipient of nonconsensual somnophilic behavior). However, as some participants reported fantasies of being raped, it is possible that some individuals will also harbor an interest in (rather than a proclivity for) nonconsensual passive somnophilia—especially within a self-selected online sample.

As the SIPS is a self-report measure, it is susceptible to socially desirable responding. Future research should look to examine the SIPS’s relationship with an impression management measure, as well as its convergence with an indirect (i.e., response-latency) measure of somnophilic interest. Doing so, along with a known-groups comparison, will aid toward validating the SIPS further. A final potential issue, as with many online studies, is that some participants may not respond plausibly, may not pay attention, and/or may respond spuriously in order to get to the end of the study. Although the Mahalanobis Distance analysis helped identify participants who were outliers across multiple measures, this issue was not explicitly accounted for within the design of current study (e.g., adding questions that can highlight implausible responding, asking whether the participant answered truthfully, using attention checks). This is recommended for future research on this topic.

Implications and Future Directions

The psychometric validation of the newly developed SIPS provides researchers with a measure for assessing an interest and proclivity in somnophilia. Considering that this is the first empirical study on the topic, we hope researchers will go on to use the SIPS to study somnophilia further. In particular, the three factor-analytically derived subscales allow for the different forms of somnophilic behavior to be examined: naactive consensual somnophilia, passive consensual somnophilia, and active nonconsensual somnophilia.

Conceptually, consensual and nonconsensual active somnophilia appear to be distinct as the latter was associated with rape-related variables in the hierarchical regression analysis. This has implications for how somnophilia is conceptualized and perceived by both scholars and the general public. For example, Money (1986) states that somnophilia is a predatory paraphilia, while Hackshaw (2015) states that it is a “nonconsensual attraction.” These definitions potentially create a biased and stigmatizing view of somnophilia. With this in mind, future researchers should aim to distinguish between consensual and nonconsensual somnophilia, along with identifying people with somnophilia who do not wish to offend. This may help establish the factors that prevent people from engaging in somnophilic-related offenses. The findings could then be used to inform preventive work, similar to those who work with nonoffending pedophiles (see Cantor & McPhail, 2016). Also, future studies could investigate whether scores on the SIPS subscales are associated with or predictive of actual sexual offending behavior. Pettigrew (2019c) notes that “not all offenders who administer date rape drugs to take advantage of victims in an unconscious state are necessarily somnophiles” (p. 302). Thus, the active SIPS subscales could be used to establish/eliminate somnophilia as an underlying interest or motivation.

Active and passive somnophilia were primarily associated with different, yet conceptually relevant, variables. Furthermore, males and females differed on the active subscale, but not the passive subscale. Combining these results with people’s experiences posted in online forums, it can be argued that passive somnophilia is a distinct construct from active somnophilia. As there is currently no name to describe this passive form, we offer the term dormaphilia (from the Latin word dormio meaning “to be asleep/be inactive”), defined as “a sexual interest in being the recipient of sexual behavior while being asleep.” The identification of this particular paraphilia opens up interesting questions and avenues for future research. For example, researchers could investigate the function that this interest serves (e.g., complete surrender, a sense of objectified desirability). Moreover, because the person would be asleep, it would be useful to find out how one achieves gratification by acting upon a dormaphilic interest with a consenting and willing partner. Perhaps it is the knowledge of having been completely submissive, or perhaps they opt to record it and watch it back. It would also be interesting to know what the barriers are for people wanting to act upon this particular interest in a consensual manner with a partner. In online forums, some issues include being woken up by their partner (which led to a desire to use drugs), as well as having a reluctant partner. These same questions are also applicable to active somnophilia.

Conclusion

This study is the first to empirically examine somnophilia and its theorized correlates. The findings indicate that people—particularly males—are interested in consensually having sex with someone who is asleep more so than nonconsensually. The results also support the view that somnophilia—particularly nonconsensual somnophilia—is associated with necrophilia and, particularly, biastophilia. These results raise questions about whether somnophilia is a risk factor for actual offending behavior, and highlight the importance of establishing consent when acting upon a somnophilic interest. The results also demonstrate that men and women are equally interested in being the recipient of sexual behaviors while they sleep. This particular sexual interest (which we have termed “dormaphilia”) opens up new and interesting research questions. Further research is now needed to corroborate the findings, accounting for the limitations highlighted above. It is hoped that this study also inspires other researchers to explore the topic of somnophilia further. Not only will this provide external validation, but it will help build an evidence base that can inform forensic and clinical practice.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary_Material_Somno_study – Supplemental material for Somnophilia: Examining Its Various Forms and Associated Constructs

Supplemental material, Supplementary_Material_Somno_study for Somnophilia: Examining Its Various Forms and Associated Constructs by Elizabeth T. Deehan and Ross M. Bartels in Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ross M. Bartels

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abrams

Viki

G. T.

Masser

Bohner

(2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.84.1.111

Alleyne

Gannon

T. A.

Ciardha

C. Ó.

Wood

J. L.

(2014). Community males show multiple-perpetrator rape proclivity: Development and preliminary validation of an interest scale. Sexual Abuse, 26, 82-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063213480819

Byrne

B. M.

(2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

Calef

Weinshel

E. M.

(1972). On certain neurotic equivalents of necrophilia. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 53, 67-75.

Cantor

J. M.

McPhail

I. V.

(2016). Non-offending pedophiles. Current Sexual Health Reports, 8, 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-016-0076-z

Davoudian

(2011). Ambivalent sexism and the expected distribution of power in romantic relationships. [Master’s thesis, Marquette University, WI, USA]. https://epublications.marquette.edu/theses_open/114/.

Fedoroff

J. P.

Brunet

Woods

Granger

Chow

Collins

Shapiro

C. M.

(1997). A case-controlled study of men who sexually assault sleeping victims. In Shapiro

C. M.

Smith

A. M.

(Eds.), Forensic aspects of sleep (pp. 87-98). John Wiley.

Gannon

T. A.

O’Connor

(2011). The development of the Interest in Child Molestation Scale. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 23, 474-493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063211412390

Gray

N. S.

Watt

Hassan

MacCulloch

M. J.

(2003). Behavioral indicators of sadistic sexual murder predict the presence of sadistic sexual fantasy in a normative sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1018-1034.

10.

Griffiths

M. D.

(2014). Doze were the days. Psychology Today, February 4. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-excess/201402/doze-were-the-days

11.

Hackshaw

(2015). Somnophilia is not a sleep disorder. A2Zzz, 24, 17-18.

12.

Hair

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

13.

Joyal

C. C.

Cossette

Lapierre

(2015). What exactly is an unusual sexual fantasy? The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 328-340. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsm.12734

14.

Knafo

(2015). For the love of death: Somnophilic and necrophilic acts and fantasies. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 63, 857-886. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003065115606132

15.

Lauerma

(2016). Somnophilia and sexual abuse using vaginal administration of triazolam. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 61, 862-863. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13050

16.

Maile

J. S.

(2015). The effect of mood and perceived cost on self-disclosure of deviant sexual fantasies and behaviour [Doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York]. http://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2046&context=gc_etds

17.

Milner

J. S.

Dopke

C. A.

Crouch

J. L.

(2008). Paraphilia not otherwise specified: Psychopathology and theory. In Laws

D. R.

O’Donohue

(Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment and treatment (2nd ed., pp. 384–418). New York: Guilford Press.

18.

Money

(1986). Lovemaps: Clinical concepts of sexual/erotic health and pathology, paraphilia, and gender transposition in childhood, adolescence, and maturity. Irvington Publishers.

19.

Nelson

P. A.

(1979). A Sexual Functions Inventory [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Florida.

20.

Oeverland

(2015). Somnophilia and the sleeping beauty syndrome—The unknown patterns of arousal. https://medcraveonline.com/JPCPY/somnophilia-and-the-sleeping-beauty-syndrome—the-unknown-patterns-of-arousal.html

21.

Peck

(2006). Somnophilia. In Hickey

E. W.

(Ed.), Sex crimes and paraphilia (pp. 267-273). Pearson Education.

22.

Pettigrew

(2017). Comorbid, sequential, or different desires? Exploring the relationship between somnophilia and necrophilia. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23, 351-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2017.1372937

23.

Pettigrew

(2019a). Biastophilia, raptophilia, and somnophilia: The blurred distinction and comorbidity of sexual paraphilias in a homicidal offender. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 30, 401-408. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2018.1560490

24.

Pettigrew

(2019b). Fantasy, opportunity, homicide: Testing classifications of necrophilic behaviour. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 34, 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-018-9259-z

25.

Pettigrew

(2019c). Somnophilia and sexual abuse through the administration of GHB and GBL. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 64, 302-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.13812

26.

Tierney

(2017). Strange sexuality: A closer look at somnophilia, July 26. http://mindcology.com/mental-health/closer-look-somnophilia

27.

Viki

G. T.

Chiroro

Abrams

(2006). Hostile sexism, type of rape, and self-reported rape proclivity within a sample of Zimbabwean males. Violence Against Women, 12, 789–800. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206291663

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.19 MB