Talk:Paraphilia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

I vehemently disagree. Paraphilias all share one feature in common: They find "objects" sexually arousing, rather than human beings. Even humans are regarded as "objects," rather than organisms. I agree that not all "objects" are equally objectionable. In fact, some objects are perfectly suitable for some situations. But to "ban" a list because it illustrates a continuum of "objects," as "objectionable," is precisely why it should be listed. Readers are capable of discrimination. But some people don't want ANY discrimination, or even ASSOCIATIONS. We've seen their kind before. Dshsfca (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)dshsfca

I cannot find a suitable section, so I'll use this one: Queers Encroach

Queer Theorists have succeeded in "suppressing" a list of parpahilias, and also in equating paraphilias with homosexuality. Wikipedia's referees bought the "analogy." But the analogy does not hold. Sexual attraction for a member of the same sex, rather than, or in addition to, the opposite sex, is still sexual attraction for another member of the species Homo sapiens.

Paraphilia is NOT Homophilia

Paraphilias are sexual attraction and arousal by non-human objects or humans "as objects." But the Wiki referees cannot capture that nuance. So, they agree that paraphilia shares the same set of features, including social opprobrium, as homosexuality. This has been the objective of Queer Theorists from the mid-1980s.

Paraphilias include pedophilia, the sexual use of children by adults. The "list" of other paraphilias has been edited from Wiki so readers don't get disgusted with them. The Queer Theorem than "Normativity" is "without norms" will do immense damage and destruction to the entire Gay Liberation and Freedom Movement. Queers parasitical use of homophilia as "analogous" to paraphilia has been their motif for 20 years. No one bought it (except HRC).

Lesson from History

In the 1970s, for example, the Movement banned NAMBLA from participating in the annual Freedom Day Parade. Had we not, former Governor Ronald Reagan would not have opposed the Briggs Initiative (Proposition 6), banning homosexuals from teaching in California schools. Because we had, the influential former Governor reversed the "inevitable landslide victor" to an "unexpected landslide defeat" in six days. But, if pedophiles were part of the Movement, no politician would have urged the defeat of Proposition 6, which the right-wing homophobes used fears of teacher-child molestation in its well-oiled advertisement.

Anything Goes

A Slippery Slope is a variant of the continuum fallacy, the inference that given the trend of A, so should the trend of B follow. While not endorsing psychiatry's DSM-IV, it continues to regard paraphilias as a mental disorder, or "psychosexual disorder." Not so homophilia. Whether or not paraphilia is a mental disorder I defer to others, but homophilia and paraphilia are neither equivalent nor "analogous." Indeed, both hetero- and homophiles can be paraphiliacs, but then sexual-orientation becomes subordinate to paraphilia, not vice versa.

Consequences

If we have learned anything in the past 60 years, not all "sexual minorities" are biologically normal. Not all "sexual minorities" are mentally sound. Keeping company with paraphiliacs is other's business, but equating or analogizing paraphilia to homophilia is inappropriate, illogical, and untrue. Efforts to censor, eliminate, confuse, obfuscate, etc., are not what sources of impartial information herald. Dshsfca (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)dshsfca

Why is the right-hand bar of "sexology" exclusive of heterosexuality? The overwhelming majority of sexual paraphilias identify as "heterosexual," yet the bar suggests quite the opposite, that paraphilias are asssociated only with variant sexual orienations. I'm sure the referee will want to correct this error asap. Dshsfca (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)dshsfca

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

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

Is this for real? --ZekeMacNeil 04:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

Merge from Teratophilia

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

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? -- Pakaran 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nazi fetish

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

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)

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)

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)

Of course. May be it is joke-philia. Alexandrov 11:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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

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)

Something can really only be considered a paraphilia if it is damaging to you or another person. If you are perfectly fine with your kinks and there are no problems, you do not have a paraphilia. Simple enough. 74.251.23.130 (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

To the above statement, i don't know if that can be true, from what i myself understand by both having a fetish is a sexual kink, while having a paraphilia is an uncontrollable urge to an uncommon object ie. Necrophilia - they can not control being sexually aroused by corpses and they 'hunt' for say ways to get/see this for their own benefits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.8.81 (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sexual addiction as a Paraphilia?

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

• "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)

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5