From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine / Psychiatry (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (marked as High-importance).

"Is homosexuality a paraphilia? The evidence for and against"[edit]

A new article on this topic has just been published (in Archives of Sexual Behavior), summarizing many of the correlates of the paraphilias. Should anyone decide any of its contents should be integrated into the mainpage, it was published Open Access, so it can be downloaded and circulated freely: [1]. The article contains a very substantial reference list to the primary literature.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you promoting your own original research? Someone963852 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
No. To avoid a multipage discussion, please make your comments here at COIN or at talk:Homosexuality.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Multipage discussion could have been avoided by starting only one discussion, James.
Given marionthelibrarion's previous, blatant violations of COI, it makes sense that his actions be watched carefully. Promoting his own article on multiple talk pages, using the login James Cantor, is within Wikipedia policy although not the best of practices. The publication itself would carry more weight if the author were not also on the journal's editorial board.
As for the contents, the article has a critical failing: It does not address diversity within the paraphilias. It assumes homosexuality is not a paraphilia, groups all other paraphilias together, and then contrasts the two. This is analogous to arguing that 'l' is not a letter because it is taller than 'e', or alternatively arguing that 'l' is a letter because it is the same height as 'k'. Both arguments are false, because they neglect the differences among the other letters. Had the paper gathered unbiased data for many separate paraphilias (and homosexuality), and showed how they clustered, it might have been useful. BitterGrey (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality may differ as it may follow the pattern of left handedness arising from a genetic basis , but also decreased brain lateralization caused by excessive prenatal testosterone, or excessive estrogen exposure (polar opposites). That's why one observes the hyper masculine homosexual, like footballer David Kopay , and the more effeminate types like Boy George, and effeminate left handers like Justin Beiber opposed to the more masculine left handers.Sempre30 (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've integrated Cantor's review article in two places, both in the Paraphilia#General concerns section. They are:
Bittergrey has already reverted the first (I've since replaced all citegnoming but left out the initial sentence and citation).
I consider these to be reasonable, brief, attributed summary of a review article in an unarguably reliable source. Are there any policy or guideline-based objections to the use of the citation? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
As is clear from his comment at the main discussion, WLU's determination to cite this article preceded his actually having read the article: "I'll read and integrate it". He has yet to engage us in discussing the merits of the article; the question of IF it should be cited at all. BitterGrey (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
As a reliable, secondary source published in a mainstream, high-impact, highly pertinent journal addressing a single specific question very relevant to this page - I don't really see any issue in citing it. The same way I would cite, without any real thought on the matter, a review article on the genetics of autism on the autism page.
Are there any issues of my summary of the article?
The version added by KimvdLinde is much more definitive than the version I put in, with much less detail - but I don't have an issue with it.
I do think the information I added here is worth including and I can't see any reason for it to be removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
KimvdLinde and myself cut your attempt to add a new paragraph dedicated to Cantor and multiple citations down to one sentence and one citation, which I think is extremely generous. You should be grateful. I would have prefered the complete removal of your effort to promote James Cantor, which appears to have been supported by no one but you and Cantor. Have you even read the article yet? I've posted my reservations about the article's critical internal flaw (the "e" vs "k" thing) and external flaw (since the author is on the journal's review board, how much critical review did it actually receive?) above. You had the option of addressing my concerns. You chose to fight instead, having already decided to promote Cantor and his article before even reading the article. You might want to gratefully cut your losses before we find a source for KimvdLinde's point that isn't PRIMARY. BitterGrey (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I think adding a single line confirming that the most recent research confirms the position of the APA to remove it from the DSM as correct was actually missing from the section it was added to. As such, I think it is fine. I read the article, and beyond a few rather general aspects such as age of onset that are shared with many developmental changes, it is confirmatory that the current state of our knowledge is that they are two separate phenomena. I personally don't care who wrote it, it should be treated the same way as all other sources. And as I said, having a confirmation that homosexuality is not a paraphylia at the end of the section discussing it is a good thing. I am more wondering whether there are other substantial articles conforming the same thing? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Note about the primary. The rules abour secondary versus primary are in place to beat back original research in certain fields. In many many articles, primary sources are used and I have no problem with that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I explicitly attributed it to Cantor because it's new and synthesizing a novel hypothesis, but I have no problem leaving it as is. I still think there is value in noting Cantor's statement that there is no objective criteria for defining a paraphilia versus a variant sexual interest. Kim, do you have any opinion on that? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the hypothesis is actually very old, and discredited in the 70-ies. Hence the removal of it from the DSM. In psychology, there are often no clear criteria separating things, so I am not surprised about his statement regarding this. I think we have to keep in mind here that the Clarck Institute has a history of pathologizing human sexual behavior, and in that context, this study is nothing unusual. But if we take you assertion that it is a novel hypothesis, it should be more than enough pause to you about including it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I looked for other sources, and there isn't much recent discussion about whether homosexuality is a paraphilia or not. Even Cantor's paper needed to conclude "although homosexuality is probably better said to be distinct from the paraphilias, that conclusion is still quite tentative." Since the definition of paraphilia is changing in DSM V, I don't expect much work to go into whether it fits into the old definition. Other than relying on something "new and synthesizing a novel hypothesis", could we simply state that the academic consensus has remained that homosexuality should not be categorized as a paraphilia? We could cite the DSM if we needed to cite an established source to show that homosexuality still isn't on the list.
The implication that I'd like to avoid is that all the paraphilias are similar (or 'all paraphilias except homosexuality'). While not stated in his paper, this is inherent in Cantor's argument. BitterGrey (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I already expected no other current research on this topic as it is a revival of an old and discredited idea.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
have a look here: Charles Moser book section -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
pgs 100-101? Seems like a worthwhile source. Could it be summarized by something along the lines of "while the traditional category of paraphilia is being questioned, the exclusion of homosexuality from that category has been largely unquestioned since its removal from the DSM in 1980"? By the way, a 2011 article offers an update[2]. Google scholar returns either the book or the article near the top, depending on whether the search was limited to after 2005. BitterGrey (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Regarding article content, it's more accurate to say that definitions of paraphilia have been rewritten to exclude homosexuality. The article in question appears to be part of a new front in POV pushing, where SPAs and other conflicted Wikipedia editors create articles off-wiki with specific hopes of getting them inserted into Wikipedia articles (or influencing Wikipedia content). I see the editor in question has done this seven times in recent months, promoting himself and his beliefs. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] It's hard to assume good faith in the context of that behavior, even though this most recent trend is not in violation of any policies. This specific attempt is clearly titled to suggest an objective airing of two points of view, but it doesn't even cite the many people whose work discusses the connection between theoretical and historical definitions of homosexuality and paraphilia, including Sigmund Freud, Benjamin Karpman, Emil Gutheil, Anil Aggrawal, and Martin Kafka, all cited in the Wikipedia article. Dan Karasic and Jack Drescher have discussed the history of attempting to distinguish homosexuality from other paraphilias when the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. Some observers have written that it is a political act. You'd never know the positions of other viewpoints from reading the article in question; it's simply an apologia for the author's POV. Jokestress (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

True. The consensus seems to be that Cantor's is an at-best primary reference with baggage, to be replaced when better references come along. KimvdLinde proposed a book section[10] and I proposed a first pass for some text summarizing it that might make everyone happy. (Well, except for those who's sole objective is to cite Cantor.) What are your thoughts on these? BitterGrey (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
The language in there, especially "confirmed," has way too much POV. I'm in a quandary, because describing the capabilities of the author and his off-wiki work in the most accurate way would seem to some an NPA issue here. This paper makes up new half-assed terminology and was conceived of and written to support a foregone conclusion. This editorial is written by a gay activist whose life's work has often revolved around classifying gay men into pedophiles and non-pedophiles. In this paper, he classifies sexuality into "good love" (euphilia - a word he just made up) and something else, presumably "bad love" (dysphilia). Unsurprisingly, he once again finds his own sexuality to be "good," where someone attracted to, say, adult transgender people, is a mentally ill paraphilic. This is largely about his attempts to rewrite the Karen Franklin article on Wikipedia. She's a rival psychologist who hurt the author's feelings by pointing out that this kind of diagnostic pretextuality has dire implications in forensic psychology.
We should not include it. It's a problematic paper that introduces novel/WP:FRINGE ideology and makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. If there is consensus to include it, I think we should quote the paper with something like "Psychologist James Cantor stated that 'homosexuality has a pattern of correlates largely, but not entirely, distinct from that identified among the paraphilias.'" I say we use that as a placeholder as a first order of business if we aren't going to remove it for now. The second order of business is to get consensus as to whether this article merits inclusion. I vote no, because of the introduction of problematic new ideas that are highly biased. Perhaps a straw poll or a chat at the RS noticeboard is in order. Jokestress (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Hm...Cantor being on the editorial board puts a different spin on the source and the RSN might be a good idea. Re-reading the article itself, it does indeed "suggest" (Cantor's word) a distinction rather than confirm it. Attribution and a softer wording both seem a good idea. I'd normally do it myself but there's a pretty good chance I'll just get reverted. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
So basically WLU determined that he would cite the article, then edit warred to cite it, and now might have finally read it. An RS/N discussion would be pointless, since as discussed below, WLU ignores RS/N discussions that don't support Cantor and his colleagues. Additionally, RS/N would only comment on whether the article should be removed due to unreliability. Since the apparent consensus (at least among those who read it first) is already to replace the source, RS/N input would be moot. BitterGrey (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Any objections to text along the lines of "while the traditional category of paraphilia is being questioned, the exclusion of homosexuality from that category has been largely unquestioned since its removal from the DSM" cited to New directions in sex therapy: innovations and alternatives, pgs 100-101, as a replacement? I'm open to alternatives, of course. BitterGrey (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Med Hypotheses[edit]

Medical Hypotheses is not a reliable source that can be used casually, the journal explicitly exists to include speculative ideas far from the mainstream. It should not be used as a serious reference, particularly since it is redundant to actual reliable sources earlier in the paragraph. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To quote AerobicFox from RS/N, regarding a particular chapter by Cantor, Blanchard, et. al. "This source has a variety of WP:REDFLAGs, the preface of this textbook states "it is aimed primarily at graduate students taking a first course in adult psychopathology ... chapter authors were given considerable latitude"(emph mine). The chapter author of this particular chapter, Ray Blanchard, sources this theory to his own published work in 1993."[11]. In spite of this, WLU, you fought and argued endlessly to make that source the most cited in the paraphilic_infantilism article. Since both sources involve considerable latitude given in the hopes of bringing novel theories to print, I'm willing to meet you halfway: We'll remove both sources. BitterGrey (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't see what that does to make Med hypotheses a reliable source. I'll bring this up at WP:RSN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there is already at least one discussion 1, but I've started a new one here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It is about as reliable as one source WLU not only used, but used NINE times in one article, even when irrelevant. WLU is yet again fighting for a Cantor/CAMH source and fighting against a comparable non-Cantor/non-CAMH source. Next (since I won't be here all day to defend the article) I suspect WLU will continue ignore RS/N's comments about the Cantor/CAMH source, and use any RS/N comment as an excuse to re-remove the non-Cantor/non-CAMH source. WLU has already demonstrated how unimportant reliability is to him; once he cited a Wikipedia reprint marketed by a diaper company as an RS[12]. WLU, you are implementing a double standard. BitterGrey (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Based on this discussion of the source in addition to the initial section linked above, it's pretty clear that Med Hypotheses isn't a reliable source; fortunately the page content doesn't suffer because there is already a second source to verify the text. If the author of the article published his/her arguments in a separate, acceptably reliable source, please feel free to cite that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, this journal, however interesting, is specifically and deliberately and by editorial intent a place for publishing unconfirmed hypotheses. not for publishing scientific data or conclusions. There is a purpose in publishing such material--the conceivable case that they might be worth investigating, the suggestive value for other ideas, a way for people to publish such ideas with having them shoehorn into what would otherwise be scientific articles. The journal provides a publication venue that can not be confused with actual science. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

History list deletion discussion[edit]

Cantor's post above was one of three. The second was at homosexuality regarding the same journal article, and the third at COI/N regarding the first two. To try to answer a question at the COI/N discussion, I started a list of where Cantor was being named and cited using Google, and used wikiblame to find who did it. My intent was to gather history and see if there were any patterns. For example, does WLU do this often?

DGG, who has stated a lack of neutrality and that he is "too involved"[13], requested the speedy deletion of that list of diffs. The discussion of that deletion (which for some reason did not occur before the deletion) is here. DGG has yet to share why he considers those diffs so dangerous. BitterGrey (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to this page. Cantor's article is a reliable source, it was integrated and found acceptable by multiple editors, and I've seen absolutely no valid reason to remove it. I don't see why Cantor as an editor or author is still being discussed, nor can I see any reason for an utterly irrelevant deletion review is being brought up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
As I recall, WLU, multiple editors needed to restrain your attempt to promote Cantor. Good editors shouldn't be finding "different spins" AFTER the edit war[14] - but carefully read the sources BEFORE. Yes, you didn't see why he should be discussed or evaluated - you just promoted him. Your biased promotion is the perfect example of why that list is not only relevant, but necessary. BitterGrey (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Good editors often disagree on how to properly summarize and integrate sources as part of the consensus making process. My initial integration, which used an attributed and softened summary of the paper, was replaced by an unattributed, much more absolute version, by another editor. And now we have consensus.
It's hardly promotion to add a relevant, reliable, secondary source by an unambiguous expert to a page. That would seem to be little more than regular editing. I've yet to see any evidence that your objections are in line with the policies and guidelines or that any outside input from various boards have been sought and found to agree with you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, the "nobody agrees with BitterGrey" counterargument again. When WLU wrote Cantor (by name) into paraphilic infantilism[15], FiachraByrne removed it[16]. When WLU wrote Cantor (by name) into paraphilia[17], KimvdLinde removed it[18]. That is two for two, unless WLU has added Cantor by name into any other articles and had it removed by someone else. It would seem more that nobody agrees with WLU's promotion of Cantor. Perhaps that is why WLU is so eager to get the history deleted or dismissed as irrelevant. BitterGrey (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
When a comment is not attributed, it's assumed to be uncontroversial enough to not present it as a specific person's opinion. Attribution is a weaker way of presenting an argument - rather than "Things are like this", an attributed argument states "This person thinks things are like this". KimvdLinde seems to think, like I do, that there's no need to name a specific person as providing the opinion because, presumably, they think it's uncontroversial (much like on paraphilic infantilism). The only reason I bother attributing statements in situations like these is because you object so strongly to the point. I think it's bad writing to present an uncontroversial point as if it were a minority opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead: "sexual arousal and gratification towards sexual behavior"?[edit]

I don't understand the phrase "sexual arousal and gratification towards sexual behavior" in the lead. Please explain it for me. Is this medical/psychological jargon? Jojalozzo 02:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a paraphrase that really needed a comma. Please let me know if further clarification is needed. BitterGrey (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. "Involving" makes sense. I don't think you need the comma. Jojalozzo 16:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Far more common in men?[edit]

This WebMD article states (on the 3rd page) that most paraphilias are far more common in men (20x) and that the reason for this is unknown. Assuming this is true, would it make sense to mention it here? If it was, I missed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmigoNico (talkcontribs) 21:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Princess Delusion[edit]

  • My problem is with the wording of the section, which I believe to be wrong. 1:20 is not rare, maybe less common, but not rare, especially when you consider the fact that there are 8 BILLION people on this planet. Society in general pretends that females are less violent and less sexual, which is far from the truth when you consider the 17 million porn sites, rampant world wide prostitution, and an extremely high tendency to commit sexual assault. The Dept of Justice reports that 95% of sexual assaults in juvenile detention centers are committed by female guards, and that female inmates are 8 TIMES more likely to commit sexual assault than their male counterparts. Additionally, 2/3 (66%) of all child abuse is committed by the biological mother, and female on male domestic violence is almost at a 50/50 ratio. When you add up the ridiculous amount of women that in the porn industry (pro or not), the various forms of prostitution, the overwhelming number of sexual assaults by women in a controlled environment, and the overall abuse by females one can easily see that this 1:20 ratio is either incorrect or at least NOT RARE. Therefore, I hold that the wording must be changed to properly reflect women's current sexual tendencies. Topbookclub August 30, 2013 5:00pm EST
Paraphilias are indeed far more common in men. Child abuse by itself, which includes a number of things, is not a paraphilia. Neither is sexual assault, pornography or prostitution. Sexual violence is also far more common in men. We go by the WP:Reliable sources, giving most of our WP:Due weight to what the majority of the literature states on these matters. It's not society pretending; it's what researchers have generally found. I will let sexologist/psychologist James Cantor go into the details for you on that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time at the moment to write out a detailed answer, but Flyer is correct. The paraphilias are almost exclusively a male phenomenon. The only published 20:1 statistic I know of is from the DSM-IV-TR which made that claim, but only for masochism; it is exclusively or nearly exclusively male for the others (except for paraphilias which are themselves related to masochism).— James Cantor (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


There is only one article about "pornophilia" indexed by PubMed, and it is from 1971. This means that the term gained no support from the scientific community and therefore it should not be employed in Wikipedia articles. Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS for more information. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I have to admit that many people like porn, since it is said that porn is one of the motors from the development of the Internet, but porn consumption is not considered paraphilia by any medical researcher worth his/her salt. It is true that according to DSM-IV-TR, the consumption of paraphile/child porn belongs to or is associated to paraphilia/pedophilia. We may therefore state as verifiable information that there is nothing abnormal in porn consumption in general, but only when such porn fits specific categories of paraphilia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
EBSCO search for pornophilia (using Academic Search Alumni Edition and Business Source Alumni Edition): no results whatsoever.
JSTOR search for pornophilia:
1. On the Cover: Cecily Brown. Alexi Worth, Cecily Brown. BOMB, No. 91 (Spring, 2005), p. 23
2. Obscenity and Censorship. Howard Poole. Ethics, Vol. 93, No. 1 (Oct., 1982), pp. 39-44
3. Perversion for Profit: Citizens for Decent Literature and the Arousal of an Antiporn Public in the 1960s. Whitney Strub. Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 15, No. 2 (May, 2006), pp. 258-291
PubMed search for pornophilia:
Fracastoro. 1971 Jul-Aug;64(4):247-59. [Pornography and pornophilia]. [Article in Italian]. Bonuzzi L. PMID: 5157314 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Conclusion: pornophilia is an extremely marginal term in peer-reviewed research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the section discussing pornophilia for two additional reasons: first, it has nothing to do with DSM-5 and it gave the impression that it renders the standpoints of the DSM-5 and second, it smacks of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, since it was either an original synthesis of the sources presented there or it has added information which is not supported by any source whatsoever. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The articles found on JSTOR do not support the idea that "pornophilia" would be a mental disorder. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sex Differences[edit]

The section about sex differences sounds highly incorrect and is poorly sourced as just being mentioned somewhere in the DSM IV. I recommend it be removed. (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That section actually is not highly inaccurate. See the #Far more common in men? section above where this was discussed with James Cantor. It can certainly be supported by various other WP:MEDRS (medical)-compliant sources, more recent ones as well. Flyer22 (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for not realizing the above section was in regard to the same issue. I still believe that this is a poorly sourced piece of information. One WebMD article with no references does not make this a fact. An Internet search for 'paraphilias are rarely observed in women' or 'female fetishes rare' (without the quotes) produced no well-sourced results that make that claim. Also, even if there is proof for the statement "paraphilias are more common in men" I don't believe the inverse "paraphilias in women are rare" is necessarily automatically true. Even James Cantor agrees that the 1:20 statistic refers to masochism specifically, not just all paraphilias in general. (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Folks might want to consider these RS's:
"In contrast with the approximately 2:1 ratio of homosexuality in men versus women, paraphilia appears to be a phenomenon exclusive to males, with only very few exceptions. Although no meaningful census can be conducted for paraphilic individuals, neither clinics, forensic institutions, nor social clubs for paraphilic enthusiasts report any substantial number of female paraphilics. Sexual masochism appears to be unique among the paraphilias in the relative frequency of female practitioners" (p. 239). Cantor, J. M. (2012). Is homosexuality a paraphilia? The evidence for and against. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 237–247.
"As previously noted, most paraphilias appear to be phenomena restricted nearly entirely to males. Notwithstanding case reports that have appeared in the literature, neither clinics, forensic institutions, nor social clubs for proponents of engaging in paraphilic behaviors report any substantial number of females with deviant erotic age preferences, courtship disorders, or fetishes. Sexual masochism appears unusual among the paraphilias in the relative frequency of female practitioners" (p. 536). Cantor, J. M., Blanchard, R., & Barbaree, H. E. (2009). Sexual disorders. In P. H. Blaney & T. Millon (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychopathology (2nd ed.) (pp. 527–548). New York: Oxford University Press.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
[ WP:Edit conflict ]: James Cantor partially stated, "I don't have time at the moment to write out a detailed answer, but Flyer is correct. The paraphilias are almost exclusively a male phenomenon." As for WebMD, it passes as a WP:MEDRS-compliant source (see this part of the WP:MEDRS guideline) because it is often one of the medical sources that are "useful guides about the relevant medical literature and how much weight to give different sources." But, as you can see, it's not used in the article. As for other sources, I'm not sure what Google search you did, other than a regular Google search, and possiblly with the exact phrase "paraphilias are rarely observed in women," but this Google Books search and this Google Scholar search (where I used the phrasing "Paraphilias are rare in women") show exactly what I mean about there being an abundance of WP:Reliable sources stating that paraphilias are far more common in men; not only far more common in men, but rare in women. But then again, some of those sources also note that, in general, it's rare to have a paraphilia. Flyer22 (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
One of the sources (currently on the first page) of the aforementioned Google Books search, this one (Human Sexuality: From Cells to Society, page 387), states, "The only paraphilia more common in females than in males is hybristophilia—being sexually aroused by criminals." Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


It says: "...a high 2D:4D digit ratio (which would indicate excessive prenatal estrogen exposure)..." However, at it says: "...this 2D:4D ratio can be considered a crude measure for prenatal androgen exposure, with lower 2D:4D ratios pointing to higher prenatal androgen exposure...". If I'm not mistaken, these two quotes contradict each other. If my observation is correct: which one is the error? Mpvdm (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed in my abnormal psychology textbook that there was a section that offered an explanation for the cause of Paraphilia that would contribute to the content of this page. I have taken the editing training course, as one of the assignments for my abnormal psychology class is to contribute to a psychology-related Wikipedia page, but since I'm not sure how to properly paraphrase without leaving out important information, I quoted the textbook several times. This is what I'd like to contribute to the section: According to the sixth edition of Susan Nolen-Hoeksema's Abnormal Psychology, “Behavioral theories of the paraphilias explain them as being due to an initial classical pairing of intense early sexual arousal with a particular stimulus.” [1] Repetitive masturbation accompanied by visualizing the stimulus “reinforces the association between the stimulus and sexual arousal.” [2] Once a connection is established, “the sexual arousal may generalize to other stimuli similar to the initial fantasy, leading to paraphilic behavior.”[3] Kaylenaorr (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Kaylenaorr (talk · contribs), feel free to add that material to the article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Nolen-Hoeksema, Susan (2013). Abnormal Psychology (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0078035384.
  2. ^ Nolen-Hoeksema 2013, p. 385.
  3. ^ Nolen-Hoeksema 2013, p. 385.

History section/Political[edit]

I've tagged this section with POV as it seems like author opinion and no citations are given, I don't know enough, though, about this subject to proceed with an edit. Specifically the sentences "Political control of sexuality through laws against sexual deviance has created a power-differential. People of color, women, and LGBT people's sex lives and sexuality are seen as a political problem and issue, taking away these people’s agency and ownership of their own sexuality." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsm1 (talkcontribs) 18:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the section Wsm1 (talk · contribs) is talking about, and it currently has one source. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The one source is not helpful, at least the page that it opens to isn't. I don't see that it supports the text. Reads like OR.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed the section. KateWishing (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this a typo?[edit]

In the "DSM-I and DSM-II" section: "but rather them alongside them in a broad category ..."

Types of paraphilia in the DSM-5[edit]

The intro states that one source lists 549 types of paraphilia; however, the DSM-5 only recognizes eight paraphilic disorders, and this is important to state since the DSM-5 is the universal authority for psychiatric diagnosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GatorChick (talkcontribs) 03:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The however is misleading because those two statements are not at odds. As the DSM says: "The eight listed disorders do not exhaust the list of possible paraphilic disorders. Many dozens of distinct paraphilias have been identified and named, and almost any of them could, by virtue of its negative consequences for the individual or for others, rise to the level of a paraphilic disorder." Six others are specifically named under the Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder listing. You should also include page numbers with your references. KateWishing (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Paraphilia. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)