Talk:Erotic hypnosis

Neologism? A cult word? Is this material better covered elsewhere? --Wetman 00:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this better covered elsewhere?

I was thinking that actually. In most of the online community the phrase 'Hypnofetishism' is not used as the main word. Is there any way to rename the topic?

Although the Hypnofetishism is sometimes associated with erotic behivour, the links are slighty baised as it only covers erotic hypnosis. Futher more, the "Hypnosis in media" link has been removed as it is now missing. I will try to find MC fanfiction of a more descent nature, however i suggest other users do the same as it is difficult to filter the adult sites from the normal ones -Dynamo_ace

I would say that the main reason that adult sites are hard to filter from normal here, is that the very word "fetish", relates to specific experiences and objects intended to either initiate or enhance sexual arousal. In fact the clinical definition of 'fetish' implies a psychoerotic pathology defined by the fact that without the object/situation of the fetish being present, no sexual response can be obtained by the 'sufferer'. Therfore would it be better off in Psychopathology, Deviant Behavior, a new section called Hypno-BDSM/Hypno-sex, or Strange Erotic Practices is my question? -Hypnosystemsuk

Well, I am sure that many people who enjoy erotic hypnosis do not have a hypnosis fetish in the DSM-IV sense of the word. Therefore, I don't think it would be a good idea to move the entry to psychopathology. I also think the DSM-IV is moving away from classifying things using the perjorative language of "Deviant Behavior." I suggest calling the entry "erotic hypnosis" and consolidating the hypnofetishim/hypnofetishist listing under that entry, with a mention that some people are fetishists, but some just enjoy it as another variation.

Dana (dana2k_us@yahoo.com)

Precisely. It's inappropriate for wikipedia to insert subtle editorializing, such as categorizing certain sexual practises as normal and others as deviant behavior. It's not our place to judge that. NPOV is crucial when dealing with off-the-beaten-path activities and behaviors. -Kasreyn 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Linking to commercial websites

As of yesterday evening a user attempted to edit the article in an attempt, according to his edit summary, to redact links to outside sites as "self-promotion", and not appropriate on Wikipedia. The edit was I think improperly done, and removed nearly half the article, including all external links. I reverted it to the prior version. Nevertheless, this brings up the issue of linking to outside websites. While some sites, like mcstories.com, obviously merit being linked to this article, we ought to have a discussion about whether commercial providers, such as Hypnodommes and so forth, ought to be linked here. I'm opening up this topic on the discussion page to see what the consensus is. Tommythegun 13:22 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the notability standard should be, for any subculture, how important a certain site is in that subculture's community, and how much useful information content it has. The problem is, how do you go about ascertaining that? I'd say we'd need input from the subculture in question to even begin.

For starters, I'd definitely agree that the emcsa should be retained. It seems to be the oldest and largest of these sites. As for the others, following links can be done even by someone with no knowledge of the subject, and if the site is an obvious spam or advertisement site, then it can be removed. Kasreyn 19:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I'd like to apologise for wiping most of the article. That certainly wasn't my intention. Secondly, I've already written a reply to this once, but Firefox decided to crash on me.

The Wikipedia policy is clear in that nobody should use articles to advertise themselves or anything else. In this case, an edit was made by Isabellavalentine adding 'isabellavalentine.com. It's clear that this was self-promotion and advertising by that person and I have mentioned this on their Talk page. I agree with both of your points, however, that sites such as mcstories should be kept - if only because they're free sites which do not set out to make profit, unlike the aforementioned advertisement edit. Basically, if people are making money from their websites and they're not well-established community resources, then they should be removed. This isn't my own personal feeling, but Wikipedia's own policy. (What Wikipedia is not is a good start.

Thanks for reading.--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 10:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to maintain links in this article to several community web sites, including mcstories, mcforum.net, and inraptured.com. I have also tried to maintain links to non-fiction articles other educational resources related to this topic (like the FAQ on Hypnotic Dreams.com and the articles on Oyster&Chocolate.com). Some of these links have been included in this article for over two years, but when I tried to restore them (4 times) today, my efforts were undone within a matter of minutes. Mesmer7 —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Your additions fail to meet WP:EL standards; they are inadmissible. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

These links are legitimate community resources, NOT SPAM. Some of these links have been part of this article for over a year, some for over 2 years. If you can't tell the difference between spam and a legitimate community resource, then you have no business editing this article.

"Community resources" such as forums do not meet WP EL guidelines. The links in the warnings I've given you would inform you of this, if you bothered to read them. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 06:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at wiki talk so apologies if I goof up or commit some sort of transgression. With regard to external links, my site has been listed for well over a year. Occasionally it is removed but I had always thought maybe it was because it wasn't too popular with some of those who wish to profit from the erotic hypnosis/hypnodomination field. For the four years my site has been in existence, it has been 100 percent free. It will remain a 100 percent free MP3 and text resource for people interested in this subject. If a link to my site in the external links section of this article is inappropriate, then I would like to be informed and would appreciate understanding why.  :) http://www.ladyjulia.net Lady Julia 47 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Lady Julia 47

It would appear to me that individuals have been a tad bit over zealous removing external links. I have added back external links which I feel were unjustly removed by previous edits. The links I restored all are well run professional sites, none are selling anything. All provide some insight into the erotic hypnosis fetish and I consider them worthwhile resources for researching this topic. Is that not the mission of Wikipedia to provide an information resource? I think over the process of going back and forth deleting and restoring external links is a petty practice. It has lessened the value of this article. If someone feels the need to remove the external links I've restored, please also remove the link to my site "Erotic Hypnosis eZine" as there are more valuable resources out there, if you are going to remove any might as well remove them all. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stagehand07 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. And remember to post talk page edits at the bottom of the thread. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain why the link to my site is inappropriate? I see that it has been removed. http://www.ladyjulia.net Thanks. Lady Julia 47 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Lady Julia 47

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to contribute to the WP article rather than expecting wikipedia to be a spring-board to your site. Redblueball (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to solicit hits for my site. I thought that section was for resources and that is what my site is. No worries, I was just trying to be of help to those seeking information. Best wishes. ~ Lady Julia 47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.199.115 (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much copied text

Large parts of this article are directly copied from Hypnosisinmedia.com, as well as other Wikipedia articles, so currently the entire section History (including Hypnosis on the Silver Screen) is just a scrapbook of text taken from other sources.

No idea what a synopsis of The Manchurian Candidate is doing in an article about hypnofetishism either, the article does seem to go off topic occasionally.

172.129.150.68 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Destructive overediting

Editor Lotusduck has repeatedly engaged in mass deletes of significant portions of this article, leaving it pretty well barren. I call it overediting, that materially diminishes the quality of the article and has left it largely barren and empty, describing almost nothing of what it intends. I'm not critiquing the necessity of the original research and unverified claims qualifiers and requirements for articles. In the case of this article, however, we are caught in a destructive Catch-22. Much of the citations usable will be critiqued as advertising or somesuch. Absent cites, edit puritans like Lotusduck come in with their wrecking ball, without adding any better material or improving the article. There needs to be a compromise. Over the next few days, absent any better ideas from anyone else, I'm looking to add back in material that's been lost in successive edits, and working to find reasonable cites and sources. We should have a time frame, for material that is brought back in, over which it can and should be left there and worked on to bring it into compliance before anyone gets all hot and bothered again and engages in more mass-deletes. I'm hoping that we can civilly work through this and constructively improve this article without acrimony. I want to avoid an edit war.

Could you give a good list of what sites and sources would be approved of? I've personally found the Realm of Bliss podcast to be extremely helpful in an informational way on the Erotic Hypnosis front. (12.207.82.157 (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Too much confusion, not enough information...

About a year ago I came to this article to get a better grasp of the public perception of erotic hypnosis and left more confused than anything. Wikipedia is a wonderful forum for the dissemination of information, but I have great concerns about commercialism in some of the articles that I have seen.

When I decided that it would be interesting to try to contribute, I began to understand some of the problem. I literally searched for everything I could find on the internet about the subject. I checked with my library and even at Ohio State. While there are countless hypno-erotic commercial websites, there are only two serious published works on the subject, Peter Master's and Michael Scott's (no relation to the guy on the office, I emailed him and asked).

As a polite follow up to my rather goofy question, Mr. Scott was able to send me several articles on the subject of hypnotic exploration of sexual dysfunction and rape treatment and counseling, articles written for sex therapists about using hypnosis to induce sexual arousal and release inhibitions, but even those didn't address the subject of popular culture erotic hypnosis. The clinical material dances around the subject (even, surprisingly, the works written for sex therapists).

Finding only two credible sources for information, both more or less being how-to guides, I went back to the internet for one last look and, much to my disappointment, I found that hypnosisarticlesdirectory.com had taken down the one decent public article that had been available (censorship? morality concerns?). Frustrating !

I have been a vocal critic of under-referenced articles here and elsewhere. I have harped about articles citing only internet sources of information. No more !

I apologize to all of the authors who I have complained about, and in one case to, regarding their under-referenced works. If you have constructed a well written and informative article I will be, as I should have been, thankful for both your information and effort. I realize now (slow learner, I admit) that many subjects, especially ones new to the public eye (like Erotic Hypnosis) simply may not have more information available to be referenced. I suppose that this is one of the best uses for Wikipedia, making information available about new cutting edge topics, and I apologize for having missed this important point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneWrite (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)