|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paraphilic infantilism article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|WikiProject Sexuality||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|Paraphilic infantilism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|Threads older than 2 months may be archived by.|
A couple observations: 1) The IP poster(s) with IPs from the same connection claims to be different people. 2) Someone (Spl1) deleted comments critical of him/her self. Who would think a harmless fetish would cause so much consternation? (I'm neglecting the tildes because I think it's a stupid policy to ask people to do something that's easily done on the software level) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 21:25, August 11, 2012
- my response to 1: perhaps two people (domestic partners?) share the same internet connection. not inconceivable. in fact, likely.18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- the article on "paraphilic infantilism" is much too sexually oriented. from what i gather with respect to the bdsm community, a lot of people ("littles") engage in ageplay for what are essentially NONsexual reasons. infantile ageplay may be a way of dealing with mental issues, a means of retreating from adult responsibilities and pressures. some may see at as an attempt to recapture one's lost innocence. for many individuals, infantile ageplay may have nothing whatsoever to do with adult sexuality. all. in fact, it could be seen as a retreat from one's status as a sexualized adult. i don't particularly like the term "paraphilic infantalism." what we are talking about may not be "philic" at all. the desire to be loved and cared for as if one were a child isn't necessarily sexual. "infantile ageplay" might be a better term. what we are talking about is a "fetish," but i would argue that it is essentially a nonsexual fetish (similar to, and in some cases overlapping with, a fetish for collecting stuffed animals, or even dressing up as an animal (furries).22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your edit removed sourced information, added information not verified by the source appended to it, deleted sourced information and used inappropriate capitalization. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 04:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- But YOU removed sourced information from another article - on Philip E. Johnson. How can you criticize me for doing the same thing?!?! Dark windows of the soul (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I am STILL waiting for an answer to that question?!?! Dark windows of the soul (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Regarding pedophilia to child sexual abuse.
Pedophilia should not be directly related to child sexual abuse as pedophilia is the sexual attraction to children, not the act of causing harm to them. The overall feel of this section is that a pedophile cannot behave towards a child in a protective manner and this is an ill-perceived ideal based on stereotype.
It's the same as saying everyone who thinks about suicide kills themselves.
I don't think pedophilia has any relevance or should be mentioned in this article at all. Saying something is "not" something doesn't really belong. Paraphilic infantilism is not driving a monster truck, either. But we don't need to say it in the article. Sure, there may be some idiots out there who commonly confuse paraphilic infantilism with driving monster trucks, but I do not see that we cater on wikipedia in an article to saying everything under a sun something is not. You do not define something by listing out everything it is *not*, but rather, what it is. Move to delete reference to pedophilia as having nothing to do with the article. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)