Talk:Paraphilia

Removed debates from 2003 and 2004 to /Archive 01 AlexR 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Transvestic Fetishism" and the DSM-IV-TR

"As of 2004, Transvestic Fetishism was still listed as a paraphilia in the DSM-IV-TR."

The issue here is not "is transvestism a paraphilia?", but "does the DSM-IV-TR call it one?", Note that they also make a careful distinction between "Transvestic Fetishism" and gender identity disorder. -- Karada 11:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jup, and the difference between transvestitic fetishism on the one hand, and gender identity disorder, transgender, transsexual and transvestitism is a quite significant one. Although in many cases the distinction is not so easy to make, the definitions are very different. Therefore, the article should make it clear what was called a paraphilia and when. AlexR 12:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We need to get an understanding concerning the definition of some words, most specifically, transvestic fetishism. If we are to create and maintain a page that has some similarities to anything that is on-point, then we must decide who, or what, will be the deciding factor on true definitions, statistics and other facts. When we say that the DSM-IV-TR is not the "bible", then where do we start from? To stay on the same item, I could say that transvestic fetishism is not a paraphilia and it should be enveloped by fetishism. I am not creating or maintaining an agenda other than a representation of fact. I am not familiar with the European diagnostic manual, but if it doesn?t specify the same criteria for a disorder, then we need to say that, instead of representing our own views as facts. Here is a scan of the DSM-IV-TR, published by the American Psychological Association, 2000

302.3 Transvestic Fetishism A. Over a period of at least 6 months, in a heterosexual male, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing. B.The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Specify if: With Gender Dysphoria: if the person has persistent dis�comfort with gender role or identity

I would expect that anyone that would adjust a page concerning paraphilias would have a background in psychology, or yield to those that have made it our life?s work. Please, understand that I am not trying to make this up, or facilitate a personal view of people. It is important to note that to meet the critera, one must gain sexual gradification from this activity. Transgendered persons do not fit this since this is a everyday part of life (they dress as the opposite gender for other reasons, such as comfort and others. Transvestic fetishism is _only_ by those that dress this way in a ... self-sexual? way. They dress this way to achieve orgasm. And has nothing to do with them wanting to be a women. -Thanks Alan

Well, it is obvious that this is different from GID, and if you had read my comment right above yours, you would not have tried to bother telling me that - I already know. It is besides the point, too, since both versions state that. However, there is no reason - not even the DSM - to claim that only heterosexual males can have transvestic fetishism; that is even more true when one goes by self-identification. While the prevalence among (physical) women is unknown (although it most likely is not zero), there is no reason whatever to limit this to straight males; as if bi- or homosexual males could not have transvestic fetishism. The ICD-10, the classification of the WHO, does not make that surprising (and nonsensical) assumption. I mean, how would the DSM classify a married man who occasionally dresses up in women's clothes and looks for a male partner exclusively in that situation? And that is hardly a rare occurence ... Is that somehow a completely different condition from dressing up and only pleasing oneself, or looking for a woman to have fun with? Sorry, but that lacks both logic and backup by facts. Should you ever get your degree in psychology, hopefully by then you understand that the DSM and similar works aim to be descriptive, not prescriptive (just like Wikipedia, BTW); and that they sometimes are not very good at what they do. -- AlexR 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The key word in the above passage is occasionally dresses as a woman. The individual must gain thier only gradification for a peroid longer than six (6) months. But I can see that you are pushing your own adgenda, and not worried about facts.

The list of paraphilia names is unreasonable and misleading

It's possible to invent a greek name for any imaginable parphilia. Naive readers will assume that if a scientific sounding name exists, then the thing is describes must also exist, and might be fairly common. No one benefits from this kind of misinformation. For example, sexual arousal associated with vomit appears in the long list of philias. It's possible that in a nation of 290 million people, a dozen people have this philia, or maybe no one does. It is so rare that surveys would detect very few instances, if any. Those few instances detected by surveys could represent clerical errors or insincere responses. If there's a newsgroup dedicated to vomit-philia, it could be a gag, so to speak.

I suggest the list of philias be restricted to those that occur beyond a certain minimum rate, according to reliable surveys, or that represent a significant social problem. Bigvalleytim 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, is that a polynomial function in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

Is this for real?

mathematophilia: sexual arousal through doing mathematics (from section: "Other paraphilias")

--ZekeMacNeil 04:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Count on that! =D 81.232.72.148 21:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the appropriate question would be "Is there anything that doesn't have a paraphilia connected with it?" :) --Arny 08:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a note that almost anything can become sexualized in theory, which seems relevant otherwise we would indeed get endless attempts to add new paraphilias... FT2 (Talk) 12:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misanthropy?

I can see the point of including misandry and misogyny in the see also... sort of... but why misanthropy? I'd like to remove it, but would like to discuss it first. ~~ N (t/c) 15:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Teratophilia

See Talk:Teratophilia for details. -Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 11:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medical fetishism?

Is Medical fetishism, for example an urge to dress as a health care worker, have a partner do so, or to sexually use medical procedures/devices like enemas and specula, considered a paraphilia? If so, where does it fall in the list on this page? -- Pak aran 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds kinda fishy to me. --DanielCD 02:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its own article says it is, so I went ahead and added it. -- Pak aran 02:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a fetish, then it's surely a paraphilia in the same way that any other fetish is - I don't see why it shouldn't be considered one. Mdwh 03:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religion section

"Some religious conservatives view various paraphilias as deviations from their conception of God's original plan for human sexuality, or from their religious laws. Depending in part on the nature of the paraphilia in question, judgements can differ as to whether religiously it should be considered a case of sexual sin, or of mental illness. Paedophilia and zoophilia are heavily condemned by many religions."

I assume that most religions either impliedly or explicitly condemn sexual activity with children, animals, etc. and view such activity as deviations. Such a statement is arguably clearer and more accurate than saying religions condemn pedophilia, zoophilia, etc. and view paraphilias as deviations. I'm new to this article, so I resisted the urge to go in and just change it up. Joey Q. McCartney 00:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and hope the edit below helps on "religious views". I also tried to remove the word "conservatives" in case this didn't apply to all religions, and crosslinked to religion and sexuality. FT2 (Talk) 12:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring of article

I've tried to improve the structure of this article. Several things seemed to be capable of being better laid out. This is what I've aimed for:

The "definition" contained detail perhaps better put in a separate section.
The "list of paraphilias" duplicates the "-philia" article, which appears to be the better one for the list. I have updated the paraphilia list in that article and referenced the "list of paraphilias" to it. No point having 2 lists when theres a dedicated article listing them.
The legal aspects of paraphilia were split into 2 or 3 places.
The clinical view is now in its own section, which also fits in well with the note on homosexuality as no longer being considered a paraphilia.
There is limited information on the psychology of paraphilia, hopefully the new section (including imprinting) will encourage contributions.
There is a mix of factual lists, and viewpoints: I have pulled the various "special interest viewpoints" (religious, legal and controversy) under one main section, for ease of reading.
There were numerous references to these or those paraphilias being condemned by religion. I've grouped all religious views under "religious views" to keep the rest of the article neutral. In fact one cannot give a "list" of paraphilias which are "condemned" or "heavily condemned" [likely POV/NOR] by religion. The most accurate statement one can truthfully make is that several paraphilias are viewed negatively by various religions. I don't see guessing a list of "commonly condemned paraphilias" adds much, especially since we've noted elsewhere that nonconsensual and such are condemned anyway in general. Also tweaked the wording of "religion" to take Joey Q. McCartney's points above into account.
Updated information in a couple of places to clarify specific statements.
Split the hard to read definitions section into easier subsections, by adding subheadings (No textual change).

Beyond this I've made little textual change, and nothing major, keeping the existing material and wording.

FT2 (Talk) 11:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reveiw of another article

Good day.

I started a peer review of another article, Infantilism and I wish to have the editors of Paraphilia to help peer review the article since it is a Paraphilic fetish.

Thank you for your time.

--OrbitOne 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi fetish

What about this one? Chris 03:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "Nazi Fetish" gets 41,000 links on Google. Some of those seem just to be political insults though. From personal experience, I can say that there are people out there who get turned on by things Nazi. Robotman1974 07:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, there are definitely people who have nazi fetishes, from the specific uniforms to more "extreme" things (dominance/submission in correlation to certain things). i don't think it's very well-known because, out of all the other nazi fetishists i've met, a lot of them have been very afraid of being called "neo-nazis". although, unfortunately, neo-nazis tend to make up a lot of "nazi fetishists", which usually makes for skepticism that there actually IS a fetish. cma 08:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tacotenphilia

"Tacotenphilia: sexual arrousal from looking at web cams that show tacos being thrown at canadians"

i'm guessing this is false. delete? --Wakingrufus 08:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of cource. May be it is joke-filia. Alexandrov 11:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

expert says

I gather that only real things that can actually happen to someone are paraphilias: Tentacle rape (while related to zoophilia), fantasies involving giants, giant insects, magical transformations etcetera? This page seems to suggest that all paraphilias have a possibility of being acted upon outside of the realm of imagination. Answers?Lotusduck 21:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fetishes vs. paraphilias

This article does not clearly distinguish between fetishes and paraphilias. If I'm not mistaken, all fetishes are paraphilias, because they represent unusual routes to sexual arousal. I'm not certain whether 'paraphilia' and 'fetish' are synonyms. It's possible. It's also possible that fetish does not have a precise definition. It also has a non-erotic anthropological meaning for example. Bigvalleytim 19:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fetichism is paraphilia but not all paraphilia is fetichism. Therefore the two words are not synonyms.--Dia^ 21:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about the definition of fetish: the free dictionary report three meanings, two "anthropological" (more or less) and one about sexsual behaviour. Here, since this page in the Human sexuality category, only the last meaning would be taken into account.--Dia^ 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the term

on the german wiki they said was invented by Friedrich Salomo Krauss after 1843. Here is written that was invented by Wilhelm Stekel in 1925 almost a century larer. Has anyone any more info/references? Thanks --Dia^ 21:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition

Seems like you've had a few different people come through, each separately adding a couple of sentences about how "Standards of what is normal vary from culture to culture" making the article a bit repetitive and scattered-sounding. Could those repetitions be folded into one?

deleted "Paraphilia in Popular Culture

Section consisted simply of the statement that "Some paraphilias are seen in popular culture" and the example of the movie Pretty Baby. It seemed pointless, so I went ahead and cut it.

Not really an edit I would agree with. Although paraphilia is a clinical term, it is used by non-psychologists, and the acts and areas of sexuality it describes exist in society at large. So it seems pretty sensible to give examplesor comment on notable features of paraphilia in society, rather than just the clinical definition and labels. That genres of pornography exist seems relevant, so do other aspects of how paraphilias are represented and interact with popular culture. Any strong objections to reverting it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My objection's not a super-strong one. You're right that there's a place for such a section, but it didn't really have any content as it stood--just "Paraphilia exists in popular culture" (which is obvious) and a single example of a twenty-five-year-old French movie that was not all that "popular" even at the time. If you're going to have just one example, I would choose something much more current and mainstream.

If someone wants to write up a survey of how fetishistic and otherwise paraphiliac imagery (particularly from the leather culture) has become more prevalent in popular pornography and then in non-porn mainstream entertainment over the past thirty years (e.g. Charlotte Rampling in the Night Porter, a little seen "art film" wears a Nazi hat for a BDSM scene, then ten years later the same hat is on a Playboy centerfold, then ten years later it's in a Britney Spears video) then that would be a valuable contribution.

Or you could do the same with pedophiliac "schoolgirl" imagery (hey--you could use Britney Spears for quite a few of these!)

But I just don't think those two bullet points added anything of substance to the subject.

I'm writing up a replacement now.

DanB DanD 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuice work so far, will leave you to carry on with it, and await the finished section with interest. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

"wisdom of repugnance", though, is not just the general-usage meaning of "repugnance". Culturally speaking, it's a phrase created and used exclusively in a religious-right context, and theoretically speaking, it's tied up in Christian notions of the "imago dei"--that is, the image of God as expressed in the human form, which we violate when we do kinky things. It doesn't just mean "disgust". I'm not married to the revisions I made in the religion section, but I do think that's where the link to "wisdom of repugnance" should go. Google the phrase and see what you get: a whole bunch of evangelical Christians arguing for it, and a whole bunch of secularists arguing against it.

DanB DanD 01:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood thats where it originated. But the concept is applicable very widely, and not at all limited to religion. many people who are not religious feel repugnance or repulsion towards one or more (perhaps many) paraphilias. The comment says "for a contrasting view to this, see...", and that's exactly what it's giving, a discussion why repugnance is not considered a good guide by certain people. Hope that makes sense. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still think the idea is a religious one--it can't function without reference to an idea of natural law, which may not be theistic, but has to be faith-based. But as you like.

How long do you think that "popular culture" section should be made? I stopped cause I didn't want it to balloon. Obviously there are tons of things that could go there. DanB DanD 04:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not that long. If there is a lot to say then a separate article "Paraphilia in popular culture" would be the way to go. I don'treally know what's involved or how much there is of value to say :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello folks. Nice to meet you. I think some care needs to be taken over the popular culture section. Firstly, with popular in the title, it infers some kind of consensus. So if something is commonly viewed it needs backing up by survey. I like it in general (especially Charlotte's braces:), but there are some aspects of the section that strike me as being minority or even not related. But I'll hear other views first. CSIvor 10:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headley. As you well know, you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia (yet again) due to repeat block/ban/sock-puppetry..... this being about the 10th sock of yours in 2 months that I or some admin have said this to. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory definitions?

Right now the lead line is: "In psychology and sexology, paraphilia ... describes sexual arousal in response to sexual objects or situations which may interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity."

Obviously a negative judgment.

Then at the beginning of the next section we say: "As used in psychology or sexology, it is simply a neutral umbrella term used to cover a wide variety of atypical sexual interests."

Supposedly not a negative judgment. Now, true, we say it's used differently by different groups. But the two contradictory definitions both claim to be the definition used in psychology or sexology. Which is confusing.

Also, whatever the definition we go with, we need to source it. This is a contentious issue, we can't just assume non-controversial common usage.

DanB†DanD 05:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-sexual nouns?

I changed "nouns" to "objects" in the def paragraph. A noun is a type of word. Is this really saying that some people get turned on by the words "frog" or "asteroid" or "mycellium"? An object, on the other hand, is any person/place/thing which is the recipient, in this case, of sexual feelings. --Sean Lotz 07:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual addiction as a Paraphilia?

Can sexual addiction be considered as a Paraphilia? Saaraleigh 14:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The descriptive term "sexual addiction" does not appear in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Addiction professionals who encounter both compulsive and impulsive sexual acting-out behaviors in their patients have experienced paradigm and nomenclature communication difficulties with mental health professionals and managed care organizations who utilize DSM terminology and diagnostic criteria. This difficulty in communication has fueled skepticism among some psychiatrists and other mental health professionals regarding the case for including sexual addiction as a mental disorder." "Differential Diagnosis of Addictive Sexual Disorders Using the DSM-IV"

As it would appear to be sexually related, and in all of the sexually related DSM-IV codes, there is nothing applicable, my theory is that some diagnose it as 302.9 Paraphilia NOS, and others as 302.9 Sexual Disorder NOS or 302.70 Sexual Dysfunction NOS. If the sexual addiction has signs of some paraphilia incorporated in it, (or this is strongly indicated) perhaps one might choose to use 302.9 Paraphilia NOS.

Atom 15:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ephebophilia/Hepephilia Not A DSM Paraphilia

I dont know who put "Ephebophilia/Hepephilia" as a DSM listed paraphilia, but it is not, and does not even have wide acceptance among the medical community as a paraphilia.Neither does Teliophilia. Removing it

AgentScully

Paraphilia In Pop Culture

Also edited "Paraphilia In Pop Culture", specifically the listing of Britney Spears and the 1997 film "Lolita" as examples of pedophilia. I changed those two as an example of ephebophilia, beause Britney Spears was 16 at the time (adolescent) and Lolita was portrayed as 14 in the 1997 film (also adolescent). AgentScully

Sexism in Drug Treatment section.

The focus in the treatment section focuses heavily on men. What kinds of treatments are available for female Paraphiliacs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.72.171.153 (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This struck me about the article as well. It also offers no explanation if it is indeed true, as the article implies, that clinical treatment was only difficult in the case of men.41.242.246.162 20:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to merge all garment fetish articles into one

I wanted to get some input on my plans to merge 20 fetish/philia articles into a single one. All of the "garment fetish" articles are either unsourced or very poorly sourced and composed mainly of original research. The new attribution policy makes it very clear that unless these articels are all sourced they are subject to deletion. I was going to take most of them to AfD on notability and verifiability grounds but, knowing that most of them do in fact exist in the underground, I thought it might be better to bring them all into a single unbrella article. The article I'm going to create, "Garment fetishism" is going to cover the general concept of the fetish in a few paragraphs and will provide examples from the original articles. I know that the concept of a "garment fetish" will be much easier to source than all of the individual fetishes on an individual basis. I was hoping for some help and advice from the editors that are more familiar with this area of study before I start making really big changes. I will be able to put up a rough start to the article to look over in my sandbox soon. NeoFreak 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of all 20 articles:

NeoFreak 03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naziploitation v BDSM

Quote:

"Sadomasochism: In the independent 1974 Italian film The Night Porter, Charlotte Rampling wore a hat from a Nazi uniform in a sadomasochistic sex scene. At the time, the image was startling and new, but over the following years the use of Nazi-tinged iconography in a sexual context became mainstream, appearing first in mass-marketed pornography like Playboy and Penthouse, and finally becoming so tame that teen queen Britney Spears wore a similar outfit to a primetime awards show in 2003."

This is dead wrong. The Night Porter is a typical exsample for Naziplotation an Exploitation film subgenre combining Nazi-imagery with sadomasochistic motives. This was at its high during the 60s and 70s when openly BDSM-themed movies like Preaching to the Perverted or Secretary (film) were simply unthinkable and would have been banned. BDSM-imagery nowerdays, like used by Madonna and Spears has no connection to Nazi-Insignia.

To put BDSM, Nazi-movies, and BDSM in the Media in one short chapter doesn't make any sense, in this case its simply nonsense.--Nemissimo II 13:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, please tell me

This article is made up, right? Specially the final part. Flatulophilia? Forniturophilia? What the hell?

Sadly no.

Why was homosexuality removed?

It's entirely plausible that it could be considered a paraphilia too. It's a very abstract term after all, and attraction to degredation or something could be at the root of it. I mean hell, they threw pedophilia in there and it's far more common and natural than homosexuality. But same-sex partners can consent and children never can so that's why! But more likely, 'paraphilia' is just another way of saying 'sick' so you can lambast unpopular sexual views.

Its probably because Homosexuals are atracted to only the same sex and no one else, if anything Bisexuality should be considered a fetish.Ajuk 11:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are all religions monotheistic?

Under the religion section, the wording appears to refer exclusively to a monotheistic religion. This should be reworded to include all forms of religions, including those that exhibit polytheism.

--Burningmace 08:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dendrophilia

Dendrophilia: sexual attraction to trees and other large plants, popularized by the movie Superstar with Molly Shannon

So is this a fictional paraphilia? If it only appears in literature or movies that one time then I think we should delete it. The link just goes to a disambiguation page with unrelated material. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats a redhead fetish

Whats that called?

Hoiw about this article

List of fictional Paraphilia

"adolescent children"

bit of a contradiction, isn't it? Even wiki itself will tell you the difference between and adolescent and a child.

216.97.171.219

Gigantopithicus fetish, Minifellaphilla

Are these the real names? I don't doubt that the desires are real, just the names. -- WiccaIrish 09:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidence

How many people have paraphilias? A.Z. 03:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A scholarly definition

Here is a definition of “paraphilia” from a scholarly sexological dictionary:

A paraphilia is an “… erotosexual and psychological condition characterized by recurrent responsiveness to and obsessive dependence on an unusual or socially unacceptable stimulus, either perceptually or in fantasy in order to experience sexual arousal and achieve orgasm.” (Francoeur, et al, 1995, page 463)

The definition continues on for a full paragraph after that. In Appendix A of Francoeur et al. 1995, there is a 7-page list, with definitions, of the various paraphilias (pp. 735-740). The gist of the definition is that a paraphiliac needs or deeply wants the paraphilic stimulus in order to achieve arousal and/or orgasm. The correlative term for non-paraphilic is “normophilic,” defined by Francoeur et al. as a “…condition of conforming erotosexually with the norms dictated by custom, religious, or civil authorities” (p 434).

The literature on the paraphilias, their diagnosis and treatment is very large. A condition does *not* have to have a DSM label for it to be a paraphilia, since the term is used in sexology in both looser and stricter senses.

Francoeur, Robert T., Martha Cornog, Timothy Perper, and Norman A. Scherzer (Editors) 1995 The Complete Dictionary of Sexology, New Expanded Edition. New York: Continuum. 790 pages.

Timothy Perper 08:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed obvious fakes

Removed reference to "Emoaningphilia;" abnormal title ("e-moaning-philia" likely fake), redlinked, no DSM.
Removed "Wind Fetish;" abnormal title (likely fake), redlinked, no DSM.
Removed "Minifellaphilia;" abnormaly title ("Mini-fellow-philia" likely fake), redlinked, no DSM.

If any are legit, please create the page first and/or cite reliable secondary sources before readding them. Cheers. =) --slakr^\ talk / 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Deviance

Isn't sexual deviance a much broader term than paraphilia? Paraphilia is generally used to describe a medical condition. Read the definition on the page...it uses words such as "persistent, intense, etc. The claims "Paraphilia is also used to imply non-mainstream sexual practices without necessarily implying dysfunction or deviance" point to a section that no longer exists. I propose creating a separate page, sexual deviance, to cover the broader issues. Having the redirect here may have seemed obvious to the person creating it, but to me, it seems rather obvious that these pages should be separate. In my opinion, sexual deviances is more culturally constructed, more variable with respect to value systems, and is independent of whether the activity causes any harm to anyone. Paraphilia, on the other hand, seems much more limited in scope--something that causes harm to others and is potentially debilitating. Cazort (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voyeurism section

The wording near the end of the voyeurism section seems to be a little unclear, I'm not sure what it is supposed to say so I don't want to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMalicia (talk • contribs) 14:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eproctophilia

I would like to see sexual attraction to farting added, as t is a legitimate paraphila and even has an offical name for it. There is a large amount of fart erotica on fetish websites, and it is alot more common than some of the paraphilias listed. Also, there is a rise in burping erotica on fetosh sites as well, so maybe some reseacrh should go into that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.154.81.235 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piquerism

I don't see it here or on the template.