Talk:List of paraphilias

voyeurism

Can any of these which involve an act, also define someone who just watches, not necessarily does it themselves?

DSM definition of paraphilic infantilism and fetishism

For those without a copy of the DSM handy, it clearly defines paraphilic infantilism: "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism')." This definition has been cited in the list of paraphilias article for as long as there has been a list of paraphilias article[1].

The current edit conflict is a spillover from one WLU started elsewhere, where he thought it was necessary to game 3RR ([2][3][4][5] - 28 hours) to avoid waiting for a third opinion. To try to derail the third opinion request, he replaced it, claiming that this was strictly a formatting issue[6].) It clearly is not. BitterGrey (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

One interesting note. Money's 1984 paper defining his set of terms (sometimes called Moneyisms, "Paraphilias: Phenomenology and Classification" in Am j of psychotherapy, Vol XXXVIII No 2) gives a one word definition for autonepiophilia, "diaperism" (pg 167). Pg 171 mentions it among the fetish paraphilias: "A diaper fetish (autonepiophilia) has a similar early origin." In 1984, he grouped it in the category "fetish paraphilias". In the 1988 book cited, pg 259 offers a slightly different definition. "autonepiophilia: a paraphilia of the stigmatic/eligibilic type... Autonepiophilia may be adjunctive to masochistic discipline and humiliation." However, it still seems to be listed among the "fetishistic and talismanic phylisms" (pg 96).

Money's change between 1984 and 1988 might have been in deference to the DSM IIIR definition of paraphilic infantilism, published in 1987.BitterGrey (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM's discussion is clearly a description of a behaviour within the context of masochism. That single sentence does not define paraphilic infantilism. This was discussed on the RSN and several other accounts have disagreed with you (here, FiachraByrne, James Cantor, FuFoFuEd, me). The DSM should not be cited, other sources including Money's are appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, minutes before your forum shopping to try to trump the third opinion request, you wrote "The DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism, period. All references to it should be removed. I've got pages 568-573, I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear." Why should the folks here believe you over what they can see with their own eyes? It is quite clearly there in black and white, page 572 in 4TR. It has been there (although at a different page number) since IIIR. BitterGrey (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU has also edited another article to assert that the DSM doesn't mention fetishism either[7]. Edit desc "DSM does not cite anything except the appearance as part of masochism". It too is there in black and white, pages 569-570. BitterGrey (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That page is where the discussion of infantilism in the context of masochism, which FiachraByrne, James Cantor, FuFoFuEd and myself agreed did not apply to paraphilic infantilism. Yes, the word infantilism appears, but only as a behaviour in the context of masochism. This is the point made repeatedly to you, so please accept it and move on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, if others are willing to support you in your anti-DSM campaign (which now extends to fetishism, not even discussed at RSN and with its own section in the DSM), why do you feel that you personally need to make the edit? Why not wait a little while and let someone else do it? You are now at 3RR[8][9][10] for the second time in this campaign. BitterGrey (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are both edit warring and I realize this. We're both at or close to 3RR, making your warning more than a little hypocritical. The difference is, my edits are supported by policies and guidelines, as well as sources. Wearing diapers, like infantilism, is discussed in the DSM as a behaviour of masochists rather than as a separate issue. The DSM does not discuss medical need, it discusses being forced to wear diapers as part of a sexual attraction to humiliation. This has been pointed out to you as an inappropriate citation of the DSM on the RSN, can you explain to me why it should remain? Within masochism, the sexual attraction is to humiliation, not the diaper itself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bittergrey (talk · contribs) has quoted accurately from the DSM but it is used here in a way that I think is misrepresentative. The quote is taken from the entry on Sexual Masochism which is given the DSM code 302.83. The DSM entry begins: The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer. The DSM then contains an illustrative list of a series of fantasies, and solitary and participatory behaviours and forms that are seen as typical of Sexual Masochism. These are tying oneself up; sticking oneself with pins; self-mutilation and electrically shocking oneself (all solitary); physical bondage; blindfolding; paddling; spanking; whipping; beating; cutting; infibulation; humiliation; being urinated or defecated on; verbal abuse; being made to behave like a dog; forced cross-dressing; and hypoxyphelia (with a partner generally). As a further example of masochism it then states that: The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism"). It would seem, therefore, that the DSM would support the inclusion of "infantilism" as an example of Masochistic behaviour rather than as a distinct paraphilia or as Paraphilia not otherwise specified (302.9) ). If the DSM's mention of infantilism were to be recorded on the list of paraphilias then it should be entered, as with the DSM, as an example of Masochistic behaviour and not as a distinct paraphilia. There are other good sources, some of which are sourced in the entry for infantilism in the list of paraphilias, that treat infantilism as a distinct paraphilia, but the DSM is not one of them.FiachraByrne (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This just keeps getting better. This started out being "about formatting"." Then it moved on to denying that the one page section on fetishism mentioned fetishism[11]. Now there is a bewildering edit request affecting the entire paraphilia section[12]. (That section does, I assure you, mention paraphilias.) BitterGrey (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with FiachraByrne. I don't think the DSM should be used to define paraphilic infantilism as a type of paraphilia NOS and consider the current sources adequate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the source someone else added back in 2008 should be restored - that is, the DSM[13] - unless you think that person wasn't sufficiently familiar with the material. BitterGrey (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed the DSM material, I still don't think it should be replaced. It doesn't matter who adds material, what matters is if it is verified by the source. If James Cantor wishes to dispute my removal he is welcome to do so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are opting for the latter of the two positions?BitterGrey (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the bok that is the cause of this section. http://www.fundacionmedica.org.ar/biblioteca/archivos_libros/Sexual_Crimes.pdf. DoctorHver (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The page number of the DSM, both in the hyperlink and in the display text, should be corrected to page 572. Diapers are not mentioned on pages 566-70. A preview of the section can be found by searching for "diapers" on google books [14]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. WLU just removed the citation of the DSM that applies to infantilism[15], and now he is requesting the the page number of the remaining collective citation be changed to ONLY the one page that applies to infantilism? This would affect 15 places where DSM is still cited on this page. This change would only make sense if part of some disruptive plan to render the DSM reference meaningless, and then remove them, as part of some broad anti-DSM campaign. Of course that stunt would only work if we were all too dumb to ask one question:

WLU, Why? BitterGrey (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, wrong page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

To take a step back, does this edit request apply to this page, or to diaper_fetishism, the second of three pages affected by WLU's campaign, which is NOT protected? BitterGrey (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Had diaper fetishism been protected, it would have applied there. Since it's not, this section is moot. I mis-remembered which page was protected and then corrected myself. I therefore consider this section resolved and not really worth discussing further. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

So to summarize for all those who aren't watching the play-by-play, WLU confused one page affected by his anti-DSM campaign with this one. The net result of his change is a diaper fetishism article that cites the DSM's masochism section (pg 572), but neither the fetishism section (pg 569) nor any of the general paraphilia sections. WLU has removed the previous citations, which included the diaper fetish and general sections[16].

Again, Why? BitterGrey (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop referring to it as a campaign, since that has the implication of a personal vendetta against you or paraphilic infantilists. Your ongoing claims that I'm doing this simply to annoy you is both insulting to me and my history as an editor, and drives off other contributors. I have consistently cited policy, guideline and source to justify my edits, please restrain your comments to the same.

Consensus at the RSN was clearly in accordance with my interpretation. The DSM does not discuss infantilism or diaper wearing beyond one mention as a behaviour in masochism. In three pages, the same inappropriate use of the DSM occurred, so I corrected all three. I'm not sure how you could be confused by this. I can keep repeating it if you'd like but you're going to get the same answer every time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion at RSN related only to infantilism (defined as part of masochism, sect. 302.83, pg 572), not fetishism (sect. 302.81, pg 569). The edit being discussed here affected only the diaper fetish article, leaving it with only a reference to the section you claim doesn't define infantilism[17]. Had you removed a the DSM reference relating to infantilism and left the DSM refs to fetishism and the general paraphilias pages, that might have made sense. Instead, you did the exact opposite. You removed the references to the DSM sections on fetishism and general paraphilias from the article, and left only a reference to the page you are asserting doesn't define infantilism.

As for "campaign", this started in February[18] and includes so many pages that you can't keep track of them. Wikipedia has other words for this kind of behavior. BitterGrey (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM discusses infantilism and diaper-wearing only once, in the same paragraph of masochism. It's almost entirely irrelevant to both. Fetishism doesn't discuss infantilism or diaper wearing and it's even more irrelevant for the same reasons.

If you have a genuine problem with my behaviour, state it clearly and plainly in a venue where the community can judge. You can request a comment on users, feel free to use that venue if you'd like.

Regarding the "campaign", can you name a single policy or guideline that it "broke"? Wikipedians are bound by the policies and guidelines and nothing else, so if you think I have genuinely done something contrary to them, then you will need to name it. I've cited the relevant policies and guidelines in my justifications, you are merely claiming I'm engaging in a personal vendetta. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You might wish to review one of the pages you just removed. In the section on differential diagnoses, it states "Cross-dressing, which is present in Transvestic Fetishism, may also be present in Sexual Masochism."(DSM 4TR 569). The involvement of a dress doesn't necessitate transvestism. Similarly, the presence of a diaper doesn't necessitate masochism. BitterGrey (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sneeze fetish

A sneeze fetish is a pharaphanlia, in which a person is sexual asouse by seeing, and hearing people sneeze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcwill2011 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources. They should be used for any addition being added to this list. High-quality sources, more specifically. Not popular-culture news sources, etc. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoosadism's common name is not Bestiality

Zoosadism is sexual pleasure derived from causing or viewing an animal in pain or distress. Bestiality refers to sexual activity with an animal. The two are quite separate, and listing bestiality as the common name of Zoosadism is either a placement error or a violation of NPOV (as well as a factual error, as their definitions differ substantially). I would suggest moving the term "bestiality" to be the common name of "zoophilia" rather than "zoosadism" although this still might not be accurate, as bestiality refers to the act, whereas zoophilia refers to the underlying attraction. Nonetheless, it would be a far more accurate placement. By the way, if I made any formatting errors, please point them out. I'm new here, and would like to improve.Clawdragons (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. The change was made several days ago, likely by a zoophile. Some use the term "bestiality" and "bestialist" to mean zoosadism, but it's generally only zoophiles who distinguish bestiality and zoophilia. And though "Some zoophiles and researchers draw a distinction between zoophilia and bestiality, using the former to describe the desire to form sexual relationships with animals, and the latter to describe the sex acts alone," like the Zoophilia article says, the terms are usually synonymous, like the Zoophilia article also says. It's why Bestiality redirects there. 72.203.168.29 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

X vs Paraphilic X?

Listing paraphilic masochism under paraphilic masochism wouldn't make sense, because most would look for it under "M", not "P". With only one exception, infantilism, the list is "X", not "Paraphilic X". Most who are looking for infantilism would look under I, not P. What are others' thoughts on moving it to "infantilism, paraphilic" or some other option that would be under "I"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittergrey (talk • contribs) 12:35, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the DSM, because you know the consensus is it does not.

I've decapitalized because it's not a proper noun, see MOS:CAPS.

I would say keep it as "Paraphilic ____" but alphabetize according to the ___ but I don't care that much. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That citation was originally added by James Cantor[19], not by me. WLU has repeated his "absolutely_unnecessary" accusations many times, neglecting that in this case, it would have involved time travel and mind control. His accusations list neglects his own campaign, including the request to remove all reference to the DSM (except for one page) from this article[20].

Had there actually been some mass consensus against the edit, why did WLU feel the need to revert me personally? Given how much effort he's dedicated to his anti-BitterGrey campaign, I guess I should be flattered. Sadly, he has yet to take the time to get his facts straight: For example, I'm not capable of either mind control or time travel, and I'm not the one who added this citation originally, no matter how much WLU would like to blame me for it. Now would someone who isn't on some anti-BitterGrey campaign (or in the gang of someone who is) care to comment? BitterGrey (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not-necessarily wrong edit cited to wrong source.

• Malitz, 1966: "Dynamically the patient's diaper perversion appeared to symbolize a regression to infancy in order to reclaim the love of his mother..." (The author also calls it a diaper compulsion, diaper fetish, ...)
• Pate, 2003: "The diaper fetish obviously led us to consider paraphilia as Mr. A's central diagnosis.
• Money, "Paraphilias: Phenomenology and Classification" American Journal of Psychotherapy, April 1984: "A diaper fetish (autonepiophilia) has a similar early origin..." (p. 171)

These authors did not distinguish between diaper fetishes and infantilism. There is, however, an RS that does: The DSM lists infantilism as 302.83 (a type of masochism, pg 572-573), while fetishes are 302.81 (fetishism, of course, pg 569-570). ( And yes, WLU, there is no arguing it - the DSM does define infantilism[21][22]. ) If there is interest in separating the two, we need to cite a source that actually does separate the two.

The reason for the migration in Money's definition of autonepiophilia from diaper fetish in 1984 towards infantilism in 1986 suggests that he was aware of the new term before it was formally published in the DSM in 1987. While there is a migration, he still does not fully separate the two. "Another younger variant is infantilism, also known as diaperism and autonepiophilia. In both juvenilism and infantilism the garments have fetishistic significance." ( pg 66, Lovemaps, 1986). BitterGrey (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The DSM doesn't distinguish between diaper fetishism and infantilism [23]. Citing edits made by James Cantor in 2008 ignores this 2011 comment. Taormino's Village Voice article makes the distinction, I'll replace it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone else has is bothered by the cherrypicking going on here, feel free to say so.

I've exchanged emails with Russ and he knows what he is talking about. "He sees the Adult Babies/Diaper Lovers (AB/DL) community as made up of four specific, yet overlapping, groups: adult babies, sissy babies, diaper lovers, and s/m diaper players." Of course, even this source describes them as "overlapping." Care to try again?

Also, are you now going to move "adult baby syndrome" over to "diaper fetish", since its defining MEDRS (pate, 2003) describes it as a diaper fetish? BitterGrey (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless all individuals who wear diapers for sexual/erotic reasons rather than medical ones also role-play and fantisize they are infants, it is important to distinguish the two. Though the two paraphiliac groups have considerable overlap, they are not identical and the distinction between the two is a relatively easy one to make - and should be made. If a better source makes it, then it should be integrated. The distinction should be made here, the discussion of overlaps should be made in the diaper fetishism and paraphilic infantilism pages. This is merely a list. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WLU, Are you going to move "adult baby syndrome" over to "diaper fetish", since its defining MEDRS (pate, 2003) describes it as a diaper fetish? According to the RS's provided here, that is the right category for it. If "adult baby syndrome" isn't going to be in the correct list entry, it shouldn't be on the list.BitterGrey (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Adult baby syndrome is a synonym for paraphilic infantilism, as noted in the text and sourced to Pate & Gabbard. They do not consider either synonymous with diaper fetishism. Diaper fetishism is not the same thing as paraphilic infantilism, though there are obviously infantilists who are also diaper fetishists and diaper fetishists who are also infantilists. I consider this the sort of thing for which we normally wouldn't need a reference, but the list is certainly improved by having one, even if it's just a newspaper. Using Pate & Gabbard to distinguish between paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishism seems inappropriate, though not as inappropriate as using the DSM. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)