Frotteurism is the act of rubbing against an unconsenting person for sexual stimulation, and it is a sexual offense in Texas. Frotteurism is commonly cited as a form of sexual aggression by some persons who are complaining of sexual harassment in the workplace, an environment where rubbing up against someone else may be difficult to witness and prove.

The theory of courtship disorder suggests voyeurism, exhibitionism, frotteurism, and preferential rape (a paraphilic preference for coercive sex) are expressions of a common underlying disturbance. Previous research has demonstrated that voyeurism, exhibitionism, and frotteurism are relatively likely to co-occur; however, their associations with rape are weaker. One explanation is that rapists are more heterogeneous and may not always be motivated by a paraphilic interest in coercive sex. Paraphilic interests can be identified using phallometric testing, but the sensitivity of the test is attenuated by voluntary control over erectile responding. Another approach is to look for a behavioral marker associated with paraphilic rape-proneness. Freund (1990) has argued that exhibitionism may be the "hub" of courtship disorder because exposing one's genitals to a stranger is rare in control subjects. We predicted that rapists who also engaged in exhibitionistic activity would be more likely than other rapists to also engage in other expressions of courtship disorder, i.e., voyeurism and frotteurism. To rule out the possibility that rapists who report exhibitionistic activity only differ in their willingness to report anomalous sexual behavior, we also predicted no difference between the groups in their self-reported involvement in other paraphilic activities such as sadism or masochism, or paraphilic target preferences such as fetishism or transvestism. Finally, we predicted no difference between groups in their willingness to admit to attempting or committing rape. The results supported our predictions, and lend credence to the notion of preferential rape as an expression of courtship disorder. Moreover, these results suggest that the presence of another paraphilia, particularly exhibitionism, maybe useful as a behavioral marker for paraphilic rape-proneness.

I quite like squishing in there with a lot of people...there's something about invading people's personal space on a grand scale that makes it funny. its called frotteurism I meant squishing as a general term..maybe it means something different our little secret hehehehe - squishing = squashing, sorry I didn't mean you personally honest, honest. I cannot bear being hugged suddenly from behind and my social "bubble" is fairly large. I always want to scream in crowded places like trains. Trying to maintain your dignity when everyone is standing two inches from you, and the hair up your nose belongs to the lady in front of you, is what amuses me. horrible and where do your hands go? well that squishy thing was a bit off Oh, you don't get your own space yet. You're going to the floor above, so you have to stand immediately behind her. No squashing or squishing, either.

The Paraphilias included here are, by and large, conditions that have been specifically identified by previous classifications. Some of them are relatively common in clinics that specialize in the treatment of Paraphilias and other sexual behavior prob lems (e.g., Pedophilia, Voyeurism, and Exhibitionism); others are much less commonly seen in such settings (e.g., Sexual Masochism and Sexual Sadism). Because some Of these disorders are associated with nonconsenting partners, they are of legal and social significance. People with these disorders tend not to regard themselves as ill, and usually come to the attention of mental health professionals only when their behavior has brought them into conflict with sexual partners or society. The specific Paraphilias described here are: (1) Exhibitionism, (2) Fetishism, (3)Frotteurism, (4) Pedophilia, (5) Sexual Masochism, (6) Sexual Sadism, (7) Transvestic Fetishism, and (8) Voyeurism. Finally, there is a residual category, Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified, for noting the many other Paraphilias that are less commonly encountered, or have not been sufficiently described to date to warrant inclusion as specific categories. In Sexual Masochism, the person may suffer serious physical damage. Paraphilias involving another person, particularly Voyeurism, Exhibitionism, Frotteurism, Pedophilia, and Sexual Sadism, often lead to arrest and incarceration. Sexual offenses against children constitute a significant proportion of all reported criminal sex acts. People with Exhibitionism, Pedophilia, and Voyeurism make up the majority of apprehended sex offenders.

What Is "Frotteurism" And How Should I Respond To Molestation Of My Child? Question : Our family attended a public event recently. We happened to be standing outside in the cold night air with aquaintences when my seventeen year old daughter was offered a coat by the husband of our aquaintence. She accepted, but when he put his coat on my daughter, he reached from behind and 'patted' the front of the coat seemingly to ensure that it was closed. My daughter looked at me in dismay as we were standing in front of several thousand people receiving recognition for accomplishments. I spoke to a friend who is a therapist. He stated that this man should be reported because he committed froetterism (sp?). Could you please (1) help with the spelling and (2) explain more about this term. We are going to pursue this by confronting this man, possibly even reporting him. Answer : The correct spelling of the term is "Frotteurism". The behvior to which it refers, according to the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Disorders (DSM-IV, fourth edition), published by the American Psychiatric Association (Washington, D.C., 1995) is "...touching and rubbing against a nonconsenting person. The behavior usually occurs in crowded places from which the individual can more easily escape....". The individual "...rubs his genitals aagainst the victim's thighs and buttocks or fondles her genitalia or breasts with his hands. While doing this he usually fantasizes an exclusive, caring relationship with the victim. However, he recognizes that to avoid possible prosecution, he must escape detection after touching his victim." There is more to Frotteurism than the behavior just described that has to do with the psychosexual development of the the individual and his inner experience, that is, sexual fantasies and impulses and the extent to which this inner experience and conduct gets in the way of everyday functioning. We don't diagnose people whom we haven't interviewed and would not label someone on another's brief description of behavior. You were on the scene and are in the best position to know whether your daughter was molested. The impact on your daughter is the most important consideration and doing something about it can be helpful to her. The person whom you believe molested your daughter was quite bold (in that it would not be the typical-feel-and run "m.o." of the individual who confines molesation to touching and/or rubbing, follwed by a quick exit), or that person would be out of touch with reality in thinking that his conduct would not be experienced by your daughter and would otherwise go unnoticed. If you decide to confront the individual, give serious thought to what you are going to say before doing so. You might want to consult your friend who is a therapist to get some guidance on how you "confront" this person. If you are giving consideration to "reporting him", because your daughter is under eighteen, evaluate whether it makes sense to involve child protective services or the police. You can count on the person whom you believe molested your daughter to deny any accusation and you should give consideration to how that person's word against your 17-year-old daugher's word is likely to play out if you decide to report. You might also be able to pursue a civil action and a competent licensed attorney could advise you about that alternative. Your daughter should know that you will react to her dismay and your reaction should be grounded in careful thought rather than in the understandable rush of anger that is an appropriate initial response to such a violation.

In discussing these so-called atypical sexual behaviors, it is not our intent to place in any way some type of moral value upon the behavior discussed. These sexual practices are those that are practiced by a smaller proportion of our society, and therefore considered to be less common or atypical. The variety and variation of sexual practices and behaviors is virtually endless. Because of the tremendous variety of sexual practices, the pages that follow do not attempt to create an exhaustive catalogue of all of the known and practiced atypical sexual practices. Although readers may find these sexual practices strange or, perhaps, even disgusting, many of these sexual behaviors are perfectly legal in most states. Most, if not all states, have laws against engaging in bestiality, exhibitionism, frotteurism, pedophilia, necrophilia, unsolicited scatalogia, and voyerism. An important aspect of paraphilias is whether or not they involve free-will or coercion. Noncoercive paraphilias are regarded as relatively harmless, since they are victimless. Noncoercive paraphilias include fetishism, tranvestism, and zoophilia. Coercive paraphilias are those that involve victimization, or the absence of consent. Most coercive paraphilias are against the law in most jurisdictions. Coercive paraphilias include voyerism, exhibitionism, telephone scatalogia, frotteurism, necrophilia, pedophilia, sexual sadism, and sexual masochism.

Serotonergic Treatment of Sex Offenders Several authors have conceptualized non paraphilic sexual addiction and some paraphilias as related to mood, addictive, or obsessive compulsive disorders ( Kafka, 1991a,b; Kafka, 1994; Kafka & Prentky, 1992; Perilstein, Lipper & Friedman, 1991;Stein et al., 1992), and therefore as amenable to treatment with fluoxetine. Fluoxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that helps enhance transmission of serotonin in the brain. It is used to treat obsessive disorders and depression. the literature differentiates between two types of sexual behaviors- and the distinction is very important for those considering the use of this drug on dangerous sex offenders: 1.Paraphilias are defined in the DSM -3R (which was in use when these studies were published) as "recurrent intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies generally involving either (1) non-human objects, (2), the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner (not merely simulated), or (3), children or other nonconsenting persons. The diagnosis is made only if the person has acted on these urges or is markedly distressed by them" (APA, 1987, p.279). They include exhibitionism, fetishism, frotteurism, necrophilia, pedophilia, sexual masochism and sadism, voyeurism, zoophilia, etc. Rape is not classified as a paraphilia, although there was some attempt to include a disorder called "paraphilic coercive disorder" in the DSM-3R (Kafka, 1991a). 2.Nonparaphilic Sexual Addiction (NSA) which is not included in the DSM, but is conceptualized as a disorder in which sexual interests and behaviors are culturally acceptable but have a frequency or intensity that interferes with the capacity for sexual intimacy (Kafka, 1991b). Behaviors which may be classified as NSA include compulsive masturbation, ego-dystonic promiscuity, or dependence on anonymous forms of sexual outlet (Kafka & Prentky, 1992). Published studies have demonstrated (to me at least) that NSA, some non contact paraphilias (e.g. voyeurism and exhibitionism) and sexual masochism are amenable to treatment with fluoxetine. A recent retrospective study of treatment of paraphilia with SSRI has shown that fluoxetine and other SSRI's are effective in reducing severity of paraphilic fantasies in pedophiles and other paraphiliacs (Greenberg et al, 1996). However this study did not report on the drugs' efficacy in the reduction of paraphilic behavior in the subjects. All in all, the literature points to the fact that contact paraphilia (e.g. frotteurism or pedophilia) or violent sexual activities such as rape are not amenable to such treatment: Perlstein, Lipper & Friedman (1992) have reported successful treatment of a one patient suffering from pedophilia and one suffering from frotteurism with fluoxetine. However these patients only masturbated to fantasies about these behaviors and never carried them out. Kafka (1991a) reported successful fluoxetine treatment of a rapist, but his case study describes a patient who acted on recurring compulsions to sexually assault his mother. In my opinion this case is not representative of the general population of rapists or incest offenders, and one may not conclude based on this case that fluoxetine is a viable treatment for convicted rapists. Stein et al. (1992), and Kafka (1992) have reported decrease in compulsive masturbation decreased libido in promiscuity and improvement in intrusive fantasies or compulsive staring at females. Stein et al. reported no change in obsessive compulsive behavior associated with paraphilia. No empirical studies of fluoxetine treatment of sex offenders have, to my knowledge, been published.

JUSTICE HALL delivered the opinion of the court (People v. Gilford): On December 16, 1997, following a jury trial, defendant Michael Gilford was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual assault and two counts of criminal sexual abuse of T.A. Defendant filed a timely posttrial motion, which was denied. On February 23, 1998, defendant was sentenced to two consecutive 30 year terms of imprisonment. On March 16, 1998, defendant filed a timely motion to reduce his sentence, which was subsequently denied. Defendant then filed a timely notice of appeal on March 27, 1998. On June 30, 1999, on direct appeal, this court reversed defendant's convictions and remanded the action for retrial. People v. Gilford, No. 1-98-1346 (1999) (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23 (166 Ill. 2d R. 23)). We found that the State's evidence was sufficient to find defendant guilty of criminal sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse beyond a reasonable doubt. We also found, however, that certain trial court errors denied defendant a fair trial and needed to be cured upon remand. This court indicated that upon remand: (1) defendant was entitled to have his own expert physically examine T.A. in order to determine whether her physical disability(1) affected her ability to move her head and neck; (2) the trial court should not unduly limit defendant's cross-examination of Doctor Rom-Rymer, the State's expert witness; and (3) if the trial court's in camera review of T.A.'s psychological records revealed that the records contained no exculpatory material, the trial court should impound the records and preserve them for appellate review. The matter was remanded to the trial court by mandate issued on January 4, 2000. Defendant made his $250,000 bail bond. On May 4, 2000, after discovery had been tendered and a number of continuances granted, the State sought to revoke defendant's bond on the basis that defendant had violated the conditions of the bond by being found on school grounds. Defense counsel argued that defendant was on the school's grounds because he had driven to the school to pick up his wife, who was employed as a nurse at the school. The trial court subsequently rejected the State's argument that the bond should be revoked and instead modified the conditions of the bond and put defendant on 24-hour home confinement with the exception that defendant could see his attorney, attend church and attend court-ordered counseling, if he gave 24-hour advanced notice to pretrial services. The trial court set the trial date for July 2000 but reset it to August 14, 2000, due to witness unavailability. On June 23, 2000, approximately two months before defendant's criminal trial was to begin, the State filed a civil commitment petition to have defendant declared a sexually dangerous person as that term is defined in section 1.01 of the Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (the Act) (725 ILCS 205/1.01 (West 1996))(2). On August 7, 2000, the trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the State's petition and instead directed that pursuant to section 4 of the Act defendant be examined by two qualified psychiatrists in order to ascertain if he was sexually dangerous.(3) At the hearing on the State's petition, conducted in December 2000, the State presented the testimony of Dr. Mathew S. Markos, a psychiatrist at the Forensic Clinical Services of the circuit court of Cook County, Dr. Roger M. Wilson, a psychiatrist at the Isaac Ray Center, a part of Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, and Dr. Orest E. Wasyliw, a forensic psychologist at the Isaac Ray Center. The parties stipulated that the doctors were experts in their respective fields. At the hearing, Dr. Markos testified that he examined defendant on August 29 and 30 of 2000. The purpose of the first examination was to determine if defendant suffered from any specific mental disorder that had lasted for at least one year and that may have increased defendant's propensity for criminal sexual behavior toward children and others. Prior to examining defendant, Dr. Markos reviewed the following documents: (1) the State's petition; (2) the transcripts related to this court's Rule 23 order dated June 30, 1999, regarding defendant's sexual conduct with T.A.; (3) police and investigative reports pertaining to defendant's sexual misconduct with J.G. as well as Melissa K.(4) and T.A.; and (4) Department of Children and Family Services records pertaining to defendant. Dr. Markos also reviewed a report of an incident wherein defendant allegedly sexually molested Danille H., a 15-year-old babysitter, who babysat for defendant and his wife's two children. Dr. Markos' second examination was devoted to an evaluation of defendant's psychosexual development. During this second examination, Dr. Markos obtained information regarding defendant's sexual history, starting with his sexual development. The doctor investigated defendant's sexual behavior and fantasies, both normal and deviant. Based on the two independent examinations, Dr. Markos opined that defendant was suffering from the mental disorder of pedophilia, which the doctor believed had existed for a period of not less than one year. Dr. Markos further opined that defendant's pedophilia was predominantly directed toward young females and was coupled with the criminal propensity to the commission of sex offenses. Dr. Markos went on to state that, in his opinion, defendant met the statutory criteria of a sexually dangerous person. On cross-examination, Dr. Markos testified that he was aware that after defendant's convictions for engaging in sexual misconduct with J.G. and Melissa K., defendant had received treatment and therapy. The doctor testified, however, that in his opinion even though defendant received therapy, and even though there had been no reports of repeat sexual misconduct by defendant subsequent to the therapy he received, these factors alone did not indicate that the therapy was successful. Dr. Markos testified that, in his opinion, defendant still had pedophilic impulses of which he had not been cured. Dr. Markos conceded that his opinion regarding defendant's present propensity to commit further sexual offenses was based on defendant's pedophilic behavior that occurred more than 10 years ago. Dr. Wilson testified that he evaluated defendant in August 2000. Prior to examining defendant, Dr. Wilson reviewed the same documents that Dr. Markos had reviewed in preparation for his examination of defendant. Dr. Wilson testified that his evaluation of defendant began with a clinical interview wherein he asked defendant to discuss his sexual history and previous sexual conduct. During the interview, defendant admitted that in addition to sexually molesting J.G. and Melissa K., he also molested his young son during the same period. Dr. Wilson testified that when he asked defendant if this type of conduct might occur again, defendant replied, "I don't know if this will happen again. Like alcohol, you must always be aware." On cross-examination, Dr. Wilson testified that pedophilia is a mental disorder that, like alcoholism, is a life-long illness that cannot be cured. The doctor agreed that an individual who was diagnosed as a pedophile some 10 years earlier would always have a propensity to commit that type of behavior again. The doctor explained that a pedophile is never cured, but, rather, the possible recidivism can be reduced. Dr. Wilson testified that after he conducted his clinical interview of defendant, a forensic nurse gave defendant an "Abel questionnaire" to evaluate his sexual interests; defendant then underwent an "Abel Screening," which visually assessed his sexual interests; defendant was also tested by a device called a plethysmograph, which measured the changes in the circumference of defendant's penis in response to 22 audiovisual videotapes; defendant also underwent a "Q-Sort" test wherein he viewed various pictures of adult men and women and young boys and girls. On the "Abel questionnaire" defendant scored 32; a score of 23 or less would be a deviation from the norm. On the sexual cognitive distortion and immaturity test, defendant scored 2 out of 20; a score of 3 or less suggests few if any cognitive distortion problems. The "Abel screening" showed that defendant had an interest in adult females with a slightly higher interest in adolescent females. The "Abel screening" also indicated that defendant appeared to be interested in adult males, frotteurism involving adult females and exhibitionism involving adult females. On cross-examination, Dr. Wilson testified that the indication of frotteurism was not derived from any documented behavior, but from defendant's fantasies and urges. However, Dr. Wilson conceded that defendant did not tell him about any fantasies that specifically indicated frotteurism. Dr. Wilson testified that the indication of exhibitionism was not derived from any documented behavior, but from the amount of time defendant spent viewing a specific picture during the "Abel Screening" assessment. The results from the plethysmograph were equivocal, with defendant showing some responsiveness to underage females in coercive and noncoercive situations. On the "Q-Sort" test, defendant showed a moderate interest in adult women and adolescent girls. Based on defendant's self-reports of child sexual abuse, police records, and the data that Dr. Wilson collected from the tests defendant underwent, the doctor opined that defendant was suffering from the mental disorder of paraphilia with features of pedophilia, ephebophilia, exhibitionism, frotteurism, and sadism. Dr. Wilson believed that defendant's mental disorder had existed for not less than one year. Dr. Wilson further opined that defendant continued to possess a criminal propensity to engage in criminal sexual behavior toward minors, adolescents and adults. Dr. Wilson went on to state that, in his opinion, defendant was a sexually dangerous person from a clinical standpoint. In addition, the doctor opined that the therapy defendant had received did not reduce the possibility of recidivism. On cross-examination, Dr. Wilson testified that in rendering his opinion he took into consideration defendant's 1997 conviction of the criminal sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse of T.A. The doctor conceded that he did not know that defendant's 1997 conviction had been reversed and remanded. On re-cross-examination, when asked for evidence of defendant's inability to control himself in the past 10 years, Dr. Wilson pointed to the incident where defendant was found on school grounds and on the number of extramarital affairs defendant had engaged in. Dr. Wasyliw testified that he conducted a psychological evaluation of defendant on August 22, 2000. Prior to examining defendant, Dr. Wasyliw reviewed the same documents that Dr. Markos had reviewed in preparation for his examination of defendant. Dr. Wasyliw evaluated defendant in order to assess the presence, nature and extent of any psychopathology related to defendant's criminal sexual behavior. Dr. Wasyliw testified that his evaluation of defendant began with a clinical interview wherein he asked defendant to discuss his sexual history and previous sexual conduct. Dr. Wasyliw testified that after he interviewed defendant, he conducted a series of tests on defendant, which included the Shipley Institute of Living test (an IQ test), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personalty Inventory test (MMPI-2), the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II test, the 16-Pesonality Factor Questionnaire and the Rorschach Psychodiagnostic test. Based on the results of these five tests, Dr. Wasyliw opined that defendant was suffering from the mental disorder of paraphilia with features of pedophilia and ephebophilia. Dr. Wasyliw also opined that defendant was suffering from a personality disorder having histrionic and narcissistic features. The doctor testified that the combination of these two personality traits indicated that defendant was a very self-centered, self-indulgent and manipulative individual, who was ready and willing to use others for his own purposes. Dr. Wasyliw testified that in his opinion the previous therapy that defendant received had no substantive effect on his pedophilia. The doctor opined that it was likely that defendant would continue to have sexual interests in both young adolescents and prepubescent children. Dr. Wasyliw found no indications of frotteurism or exhibitionism. On cross-examination, Dr. Wasyliw conceded that the five tests he administered to defendant could not predict defendant's propensity to engage in future sexual misconduct since the tests were not designed for that purpose. The doctor testified that in his opinion even though defendant received therapy and even though there had been no reports of repeat sexual misconduct by defendant subsequent to the therapy he received, these factors alone did not indicate that the therapy was successful.

Tommy Lee launches new website to fight rumors of frotteurism (October 4, 2003) Musician Tommy Lee announced today that he was launching a new website to fight rumors started by a small British tabloid. On September 28th the "English Reviewer" published a report that Mr. Lee rubs against people in elevators for sexual excitement, a phenomena which psychologists call "Frotteurism." "This is slanderous, offensive, and patently untrue," said Mr. Lee. "I intend to fight this vicious rumor with all my might. I have a drumming related hip injury and couldn't even rub against people if I wanted too!" While his lawyer hinted at legal action against the paper, the musician called on his fans to join him by supporting his new website. "It's a place where I can tell my fans what is really going on. I have to counteract any claims of frotteurism." The site contains photos of the musician, a weekly diary entry, and a chat room for fans to discuss their opinions. A news section contains a scathing rebuttal to the Reviewer's article.