From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

what is consensual voyeurism called[edit]

I saw a documentary on some sex enthusiasts organization where you could go as a viewable person, typically having sex at room with windows or as a watcher, with the mild encourgagement to participate. Im thinking about becoming a consensual voyeur, yet as I casually describe these possible activities, at say job onterviews, id like to get the phrasing right. that way if I say, "well outside of work I enjoy voyeurism" might bring up questions of consensuality at a job interview whereas if I said I was an observational swinger perhaps the interviewer would say "my how pleasant You know theres a secular tantric yoga park near us" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


The Wikimedia Mercury and Herse image doesn't have any explanation as to why it is there (a synopsis of the myth). Links leading to the Mercury and Herse articles don't explain the image either. For being as overt as that image is, and since the story of Mercury and Herse are not as widely known, I think it would be helpful to see a small explanation on why that is included. Jeni Mc 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to fit it into the article, but there is some discussion of Caraglio further fictionalizing the Mercury-Aglauros-Herse myth in his engraving, in Bette Talvacchia's book Taking positions: on the erotic in Renaissance culture, ISBN 978-0691086835, where she says "The subject of illicit viewing is expanded ... to include the interruption of one voyeur caught in the act." --CliffC (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


Are most voyeurs teenaged boys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasting (talkcontribs) 01:35, 23 October 2001

No. Twas merely an example of a voyeuristic practice which may not be treated as deviant sexuality. -REF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latexture (talkcontribs) 12:34, 23 October 2001

Sexually repressed cultures[edit]

  1. Is voyeurism more common in sexually repressed cultures?
  2. Is rape more common in sexually repressed cultures?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasting (talkcontribs) 01:35, 23 October 2001

These two questions seem linked in the way they were posed, but I don't believe they're applicable here. The question of whether or not a culture is "sexually repressed" is a relativist question at best. Furthermore, it is dangerous to ascribe yes/no answers to these questions because you are then in danger of implicating whole cultures of a proclivity toward deviant sexual practices. -REF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latexture (talkcontribs) 12:34, 23 October 2001


Are nudists/naturists voyeurs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coasting (talkcontribs) 01:35, 23 October 2001

While some may be, I would put this answer at no. A nudist/naturist does not (necessarily) derive sexual pleasure from looking/watching others. In fact, nudism/naturism is not considered a sexual deviancy because it is not linked to or a replacement for the sexual act . . . instead it is merely a preference for the naked state over the clothed one. -REF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latexture (talkcontribs) 12:34, 23 October 2001

More general defition[edit]

Although the term voyeurism is most commonly used in the context of watching people have sex or otherwise being unclothed, this isn't its only use, either in normal speech or popular culture. In general, it can refer to liking to watch people in any normally private setting, which can be a sexual sort of voyeurism, but can also be something akin to living vicariously by watching someone else's life. (A few films, such as Monsieur Hire, have portrayed this latter sort of voyeurism.) --Delirium 06:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Expanded and explained the hidden and "dangerous" nature of voyeurism. Mixoscopia (or scoptolagnia) is the act of viewing sexual intercourse (in person). Mixophilia (or scoptophilia) is the actual love or obsession with viewing the act. --hypercritic 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
For a greater distinction between mixophilia and voyeurism, and an analysis of the "danger" factor involved, please see: Voyeurism and Scoptophilia: Would You Look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypercritic (talkcontribs) 18:30, 20 October 2006


Is the reference to "making love" in a caption a euphemism? If so, should it be removed?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No.--SpaceGirl09 (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Is the illustration appropriate for older children/teens[edit]

If what we write/illustrate is to be taken seriously, we should treat it seriously. I'm pretty certain that there must a better illustration for this subject other than a pornographic crotch shot.

bpage (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In the definition, it explains that it is usually without the persons knowledge, and not necessarily sexual in nature, yet the picture does not depict either of these scenarios. Please remove the illustration as it does not fit the description and therefore just seems like an excuse to view porn. It doesn't matter how old you are. Tinyhiner (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal Clarification[edit]

I've found some of the legal examples slightly confusing, as they don't seem to make clear whether or not the voyeurism was consensual; I am assuming in most cases it was not, but I think this should be made clearer and obviously I can't update it on an assumption. For example:

  • Another English case in 2009, "R v Wilkins" [8][9], resulted in a man who filmed his intercourse with five of his lovers for his own private viewing, being sentenced to imprisonment for eight months and ordered to sign the Sex Offenders Register for ten years.

I'm from England, and as far as I'm aware, filming intercourse with sexual partners for one's own private viewing is not illegal with consent, but without consent is another matter.

I hope someone can clear this up a bit. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Specialized camera lenses see through clothing?[edit]

The sources cited for the claim that these lenses are able to capture images of a person's body through clothing do not confirm the claim. Instead, they deny it entirely: "The camera can then image metallic and non-metallic objects hidden under clothing on still or moving subjects without revealing any body detail, according to its British manufacturer, ThruVision Limited." ( The video of the camera in action does not work. But on the Thruvision web site, you can view a video of the equipment in action:

Does somebody believe that this kind of obscure mushy image is worth including as 'voyeurism'? It seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. I think the section should be removed, or radically rewritten. ParWoet (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Changing US English to British English spellings[edit]

I've twice in the past 24 hours reverted changes to this article which changed some (not all) of the US English spellings to British English ones. Please see WP:ENGVAR - Wikipedia accepts both variants equally, but unnecessary changing back and forth is unhelpful and against policy. If an article is written consistently in one variant, as this one is, there is no need to change bits of it to another variant. As the notice at the top of this page clearly says, such changes should not be made to this article without consensus. Karenjc 14:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate image[edit]

The article features an image of the painting Mercury and Herse, a scene from The Loves of the Gods series by Gian Giacomo Caraglio. However, that particular painting is not at all relevant to the subject of the article, i.e. "voyeurism, since it does not depict a voyeuristic situation. The legend of ancient Greek god Mercury and the sisters Herse and Aglaulos is not about voyeurism, either. The image needs to be removed. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)