Talk:Paraphilic infantilism

Wow!

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 173.228.6.118 (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.75.68.9.233 (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).75.68.9.233 (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not opinions. Without a source, your opinions can not be integrated into the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why??

Why did WLU revert my edit?!?! Dark windows of the soul (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2012 (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.

115.198.94.160 (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

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. 71.226.11.248 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Since paraphilic infantilism is commonly confused with pedophilia, so commonly confused with it, apparently, that WP:Reliable sources address the matter, it is WP:Due weight (very appropriate) that the article addresses this misconception. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have changed "infantilism is not related to pedophilia, or any other form of child sexual abuse" to "infantilism is not related to pedophilia, or any form of child sexual abuse", because the word "other" implied that pedophilia is a form of child abuse which it is not. 31.52.253.135 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not important but I feel that you do not understand English correctly. "infantilism is not related to paedophilia, or any other form of sexual abuse of children" implies that paedophilia is a form of child abuse, which is not contrary to the usual understanding of the matter, so the sentence could remain in this form. To imply that infantilism is a form of child abuse you would have to write "paedophilia is not related to infantilism, or any other form of sexual abuse of children". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.54.83 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Most obvious explanation is missing

The most obvious explanation is missing: sexual feelings developed earlier than in puberty, as a child. The time of the first sexual arousal is always remembered vividly, and by imagining to be at that age again, it can be relived. This also means that diaper fetishism must be something completely different, since no one remembers being a baby; so diaper fetishism should be a seperate article. --91.34.137.70 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

We go by WP:Reliable sources, WP:Due weight and WP:Notability for matters such as this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

My source is my own experience, and logic, which doesn't need any sources. My first strong erotic feelings started when I was five years old, so I developped infantilistic tendencies, but naturally they don't have to do anythng with diapers or with anything concerning babies whatsoever. It is completely illogical that the mechanism I described - which I experienced and which should be plasuible to anyone - would lead to diaper fetishism. I feel deeply offended by this article. --91.34.134.13 (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If it's so obvious, you won't have any trouble finding citations for it. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't find this explanation anywhere, so I can't cite anything. If no psychologist ever came up with this obvious and logical explanation, bad for psychology. The only assumption I made is: "The time of the first sexual arousal is always remembered vividly". I think that assumption is obviously true. The rest of my explanation is pure logic. So if my assumption ist true, my explanation is correct, no matter if someone else wrote about it or not. --91.34.129.139 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Diaper fetishism is currently its own article, a rather poor article too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is this article also full of talk about diapers then? - The word "diaper" is in nearly every sentence, ridiculous. Obiviously diaper fetishists conquered this article. It even goes on about diaper fetishism where it has nothing to do with infantilism whatsoever: "There are also individuals who wear diapers but do not act as infants, either diaper lovers who eroticize diaper wearing ... blah blah". --91.34.134.13 (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If you know how the article could be improved, feel free to do it. Just make sure you include an edit summary if you're deleting chunks of text so you don't get mistaken for a vandal. And try to include citations even if you think something is "obvious". --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)