Talk:John Money

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Documentary[edit]

Out of interest i Just saw a documentary with David Reimer and his brother in it. David quite clearly commented on "getting into sexual positions with his brother" when he was seven, and David commented that it seemed "sick" to him looking back on it - that Dr Money would do this. Would it be slanderous to print what David has said somewhere or another? I can't remember the name of the doco actually - but it recently aired in NZ. Cheers nic Nic 00:25, 12 June 2007 (NZ time)

It's not slanderous if it is attributed properly to Reimer. If you can find the name of the documentary please post it. Joie de Vivre 12:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Just found this article randomly - it's probably "Dr Money and the Boy with No Penis" from the BBC TV series Horizon. Here's the transcript. Graham87 09:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedophilia[edit]

The section on pedophilia seemed very confusing ("...pedophilia, including infantophilia (occasionally referred to as nepiophilia), pedophilia and ephebophilia."), so I recast it using the blanket term chronophilia. That left the question of whether it is appropriate to change the pedophilia to chronophilia in the statement of Money's views, since I have seen nothing about what term(s) he actually used. I am thinking we probably should make that change. Also, I changed "the debate" to "debates," because I cannot imagine that there is only one debate on the topic. Peter Chastain (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian's "accidental" drug overdose[edit]

I have removed the "accidental (?)" in drug overdose of David's twin brother. I have read quite a number of publications and none of them has stated that it was accidental, although they do not state that it was intentional either. Therefore the statement should be left as simply "a drug overdose". --Mizst (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

creating a vagina[edit]

i'm kind of wondering on what he based the idea that it would be easier to make a vagina then a penis. from what i know of gender-reassignment surgery of the time it was only easier to make a vagina in the sense that it's basically 'a hole' while a penis would need to be able to get stiff and stuff. which would mean he actually understood very little of female sexuality as it is seen today: their genitals are just as complex as men's, but most of that stuff is on the inside rather then the outside. having a vagina that doesn't lubricate during sex is as bad as having a dick that won't get up, but it's a less visible problem. if his view of female and male genitalia was indeed that limited than that's more than a bit ironic, seeing how he was such a feminist icon

Sex reassignment controversy—David Reimer[edit]

After having tried to resolve the dupplication issue of the above mentionne sub section, it appears some did not agree with the modification I made and reverted my edits. This sub section has been signaled as having dupplicated content for 10 months without any visible effort to resolve the issue. Two versions of the account oexisted, one mode detailed than the other. I assuemed, that since a general article exist on David Reimer, which is pointed to by the subsection as a more complete coverage, any detail covered in the main article can be removed from this article. As a result I kept the less detaield version.

Compared to my first edit , I kept the last paragraph, after a carefull reading, since it appears to be the only information not persent either elsewhere in this article or in the david Reimer article.

If you do not agree, which is the nature of wikipedia, plase come discuss it ehre so that we can move to an article of a greater quality, and to not revert my edits without discussing first please. --Dwarfpower (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit you've performed now is fine by me; it was precisely the paragraph you preserved this time whose absence I noted. I've been unable to perform much Wikipedia editing recently (busy IRL ;-), where I try to serve in more of an article policing (and preservation) role anyway...
Anyway, Dwarfpower, thanks for making this compromise edit... -- bonze blayk (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Always best to find a compromise here. Took some more time to be more subtle, but was worth it. I understand IRL ;/ --Dwarfpower (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it really controversy? I feel only some twisted person could call this controversy, like calling Pedro Alonso Lopez's murders controversial. who would disagree with this mans terrible ways, and acts? 75.80.235.57 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the meaning of Money's term "Phylism" ?[edit]

Look here, in his book "Lovemaps". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.146.146 (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In the printed edition of this book, the sections "Vocabulary of the Paraphilias, A to Z" and "Glossary of Terms" are included… but are apparently omitted in this online version.  ?
On p. 293 of the print edition, we have
phyletic: of or pertaining to a race. Phyletic components or aspects of behavior in human beings are those shared by all members of the human race, as compared with behavior which is individual and biographically or ontogenetically idiosyncratic. Phyletic behavior is the product of both prenatal and postnatal determinants, as is personal biographic behavior. Each is the end product of both innate and experiential determinants.
phylism: a newly-coined term (Money, 1983) used to refer to an element or unit of response or behavior of an organism that belongs to an individual through its phylogenetic heritage as a member of its species. Synonym, phylon.
phylogeny: in biology, the developmental history of a species, which is the genealogical history shared by all members of the species. See also ontogeny.
So, a phylism would appear to refer to a "standard-issue human behavior in a person", to put it into the vernacular?
Money's thinking is sometimes a bit difficult to work out - in part, because in sexology achieving understanding of behaviors and their causes can be just plain difficult (and they sometimes seem unfathomable), but also in part because he was working on general schemas for understanding human social behavior on a broader scale… not just in sexual behaviors, and the quirks associated with their endowments and enactments, which are the focus of the typical sexologist - and so he often invented new coinages in an effort to clarify his meanings. - thanks! - bonze blayk (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


Tips for improving the article:

This article gives a lot of good information about John Money and his impact on psychology and sexology. However, there are some things that I think could be improved. First of all, there are no pictures in the article. It would be beneficial to put a picture of John Money so the reader can get an idea of what he looks like. Also, the side bar at the top of the article that gives his date of birth and death could be expanded to give more information about his background and work. Citations also need to be added to the sexological books section because there are currently none in that section. Lastly, in my opinion, the section about the sexual reassignment of Dave Reimer is too long and has some details that are not necessarily important. It could be made shorter by cutting out some of the not as important information and focusing mainly on the bigger details regarding his case. I hope these suggestions help improve the quality of the article. Cstauch1 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The article should be focused on the biography of John Money- currently, this section is fairly short with small amounts of detail. The biography talks about the most important episodes of Money's life, but doesn't go into much detail about what he actually accomplished while working at the different organizations, and the innovations he provided to the sciences of psychology and sexology. (example: Money was a professor of pediatrics and medical psychology at Johns Hopkins University from 1951 until his death. What did he accomplish at Hopkins? who did he work with?)Adding detail and examples on the specific periods of Money's life will make the article more accessible and easy to use. Rschwa99 (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Money. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

How aged died he?[edit]

Since he was born in Newsealand GMT+12 but died in Maryland GMT-4, each specific clocktime is so important, because maybe he physically was 85 years aged when he died. Who knows may tell! 149.205.40.52 (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Money. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)