Talk:Paraphilia/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Huh?

I came here for a quick definition of a word that I cam across researching caselaw. I appreciate the need for a hyper-technical definition for the term, but there really needs to be a simple, concise definition for lay people who don't feel like parsing the obtuse syntax and obscure vocabulary in the technical definition. How about "sexual interest in objects other than adult humans." 69.210.137.196 (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, and no one appreciates that problem more than me. Unfortunately, no one has ever developed a simpler definition that was very accurate. For example, the definition you provided would leave out all the "activity paraphilias" such as exhibitionism, voyeurism, biastophilia, sadism, and so on. In activity paraphilias, people are just as interested in adult humans as anyone else, but they are not interested in doing the same things with them.
— James Cantor (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sexism in Drug Treatment section

The focus in the treatment section focuses heavily on men. What kinds of treatments are available for female Paraphiliacs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.72.171.153 (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

This struck me about the article as well. It also offers no explanation if it is indeed true, as the article implies, that clinical treatment was only difficult in the case of men.41.242.246.162 20:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Intent to merge all garment fetish articles into one

I wanted to get some input on my plans to merge 20 fetish/philia articles into a single one. All of the "garment fetish" articles are either unsourced or very poorly sourced and composed mainly of original research. The new attribution policy makes it very clear that unless these articels are all sourced they are subject to deletion. I was going to take most of them to AfD on notability and verifiability grounds but, knowing that most of them do in fact exist in the underground, I thought it might be better to bring them all into a single unbrella article. The article I'm going to create, "Garment fetishism" is going to cover the general concept of the fetish in a few paragraphs and will provide examples from the original articles. I know that the concept of a "garment fetish" will be much easier to source than all of the individual fetishes on an individual basis. I was hoping for some help and advice from the editors that are more familiar with this area of study before I start making really big changes. I will be able to put up a rough start to the article to look over in my sandbox soon. NeoFreak 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a list of all 20 articles. NeoFreak 03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Naziploitation v BDSM

Quote:

"Sadomasochism: In the independent 1974 Italian film The Night Porter, Charlotte Rampling wore a hat from a Nazi uniform in a sadomasochistic sex scene. At the time, the image was startling and new, but over the following years the use of Nazi-tinged iconography in a sexual context became mainstream, appearing first in mass-marketed pornography like Playboy and Penthouse, and finally becoming so tame that teen queen Britney Spears wore a similar outfit to a primetime awards show in 2003."

This is dead wrong. The Night Porter is a typical exsample for Naziplotation an Exploitation film subgenre combining Nazi-imagery with sadomasochistic motives. This was at its high during the 60s and 70s when openly BDSM-themed movies like Preaching to the Perverted or Secretary (film) were simply unthinkable and would have been banned. BDSM-imagery nowerdays, like used by Madonna and Spears has no connection to Nazi-Insignia.

To put BDSM, Nazi-movies, and BDSM in the Media in one short chapter doesn't make any sense, in this case its simply nonsense.--Nemissimo II 13:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, please tell me

This article is made up, right? Specially the final part. Flatulophilia? Forniturophilia? What the hell? -Unsigned

Sadly no. -Unsigned
Definately not, a paraphilia can be anything really, if it makes someone sexually aroused that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.8.81 (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was homosexuality removed?

It's entirely plausible that it could be considered a paraphilia too. It's a very abstract term after all, and attraction to degredation or something could be at the root of it. I mean hell, they threw pedophilia in there and it's far more common and natural than homosexuality. But same-sex partners can consent and children never can so that's why! But more likely, 'paraphilia' is just another way of saying 'sick' so you can lambast unpopular sexual views. -Unsigned

It's probably because homosexuals are atracted to only the same sex and no one else, if anything bisexuality should be considered a fetish. Ajuk 11:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Added: Homosexuality belongs because it does t=not fir the male-female pattern of adult sexual intercourse, but is typically excluded for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.210.4 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that homosexuality should be mentioined somehow. It certainly is a type of sexual behavior, and it does not fill the reproductive purpose of sex (no saying that it is the only purpose). --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately it all comes down to the current moral of society. It's all artificially constructed like the rest of psychology. 93.161.107.239 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when are all religions monotheistic?

Under the religion section, the wording appears to refer exclusively to a monotheistic religion. This should be reworded to include all forms of religions, including those that exhibit polytheism. --Burningmace 08:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dendrophilia

  • Dendrophilia: sexual attraction to trees and other large plants, popularized by the movie Superstar with Molly Shannon

So is this a fictional paraphilia? If it only appears in literature or movies that one time then I think we should delete it. The link just goes to a disambiguation page with unrelated material. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats a redhead fetish

What's that called? -Unsigned

How about this article

List of fictional Paraphilia -Unsigned

"Adolescent children"

Bit of a contradiction, isn't it? Even wiki itself will tell you the difference between and adolescent and a child. 216.97.171.219

Gigantopithicus fetish, Minifellaphilla

Are these the real names? I don't doubt that the desires are real, just the names. -- WiccaIrish 09:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidence

How many people have paraphilias? A.Z. 03:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there has been any study made to give you any exact details, it mostly depends on the paraphilia, they are not RARE but there are some paraphilias that are, if I myself were to guess how many i would say, probably about 1 in 25 have some sort of sexual paraphilia not derived as a fetish. i could be way off though. but if your trying to find out, why not start a poll somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.8.81 (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A scholarly definition

Here is a definition of “paraphilia” from a scholarly sexological dictionary:

A paraphilia is an “… erotosexual and psychological condition characterized by recurrent responsiveness to and obsessive dependence on an unusual or socially unacceptable stimulus, either perceptually or in fantasy in order to experience sexual arousal and achieve orgasm.” (Francoeur, et al, 1995, page 463)

The definition continues on for a full paragraph after that. In Appendix A of Francoeur et al. 1995, there is a 7-page list, with definitions, of the various paraphilias (pp. 735-740). The gist of the definition is that a paraphiliac needs or deeply wants the paraphilic stimulus in order to achieve arousal and/or orgasm. The correlative term for non-paraphilic is “normophilic,” defined by Francoeur et al. as a “…condition of conforming erotosexually with the norms dictated by custom, religious, or civil authorities” (p 434). The literature on the paraphilias, their diagnosis and treatment is very large. A condition does *not* have to have a DSM label for it to be a paraphilia, since the term is used in sexology in both looser and stricter senses.

Francoeur, Robert T., Martha Cornog, Timothy Perper, and Norman A. Scherzer (Editors) 1995 The Complete Dictionary of Sexology, New Expanded Edition. New York: Continuum. 790 pages. Timothy Perper 08:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed obvious fakes

  • Removed reference to "Emoaningphilia;" abnormal title ("e-moaning-philia" likely fake), redlinked, no DSM.
  • Removed "Wind Fetish;" abnormal title (likely fake), redlinked, no DSM.
  • Removed "Minifellaphilia;" abnormaly title ("Mini-fellow-philia" likely fake), redlinked, no DSM.

If any are legit, please create the page first and/or cite reliable secondary sources before readding them. Cheers. =) --slakrtalk / 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sexual deviance

Isn't sexual deviance a much broader term than paraphilia? Paraphilia is generally used to describe a medical condition. Read the definition on the page...it uses words such as "persistent, intense, etc. The claims "Paraphilia is also used to imply non-mainstream sexual practices without necessarily implying dysfunction or deviance" point to a section that no longer exists. I propose creating a separate page, sexual deviance, to cover the broader issues. Having the redirect here may have seemed obvious to the person creating it, but to me, it seems rather obvious that these pages should be separate. In my opinion, sexual deviances is more culturally constructed, more variable with respect to value systems, and is independent of whether the activity causes any harm to anyone. Paraphilia, on the other hand, seems much more limited in scope--something that causes harm to others and is potentially debilitating. Cazort (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Voyeurism section

The wording near the end of the voyeurism section seems to be a little unclear, I'm not sure what it is supposed to say so I don't want to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VMalicia (talkcontribs) 14:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Eproctophilia

I would like to see sexual attraction to farting added, as t is a legitimate paraphila and even has an offical name for it. There is a large amount of fart erotica on fetish websites, and it is alot more common than some of the paraphilias listed. Also, there is a rise in burping erotica on fetosh sites as well, so maybe some reseacrh should go into that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.154.81.235 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Piquerism

I don't see it here or on the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tivaelydoc (talkcontribs) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Precautionary"

I do not see the applicability here. If it's intended as a warning that some of the things discussed might have negative consequences, its a violation of not censored and NPOV. we don;'t give disclaimers, besides our general one. If it's intended to say that the detailed content needs to be seen and interpreted with care towards certain often nont-undrstood factors, that's certainly true, but "General concerns" or "General issues" is a less ambivalent heading. DGG (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Organization of article

I did a little preliminary work to arrange this material, but this article is weighted far too heavily toward views held by clinicians who make money by treating these traits/behaviors as diseases to be cured. In addition, there's an inappropriate didactic sense to the "precautionary" parts up front. It's got a lot of WP:OR that makes unsourced claims about usage etc.

The lede should be expanded to three paragraphs per summary style, the first of which should be a value-free description, followed by material that reflects the article content. Jokestress (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias in opening paragraph

The first paragraph should be a value-neutral definition, since the term is used in both a lay and clinical sense. The second paragraph (which was largely removed), can discuss the generally held view among psychologists and what-not that these are disorders, and we can use their nosology there. We should not lead with the disease model, though. Jokestress (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Autophilia

I'm just wondering if Autophilia is a paraphilia. If it is, it should be added. It would be sexual attraction to one's self...I feel like a butthole talking about this, but seriously consider it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.242.92 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are RS's to support it, it's in. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of words?

I had to read the first article paragraph, after the intro, about three times. I had to say it out loud, in fact, and I'm sure people /will woner/ why I'm talking about this. To myself. Although, I doubt, since these people are normal, common-dialect people, they will not understand.

Dumb it down a bit. Seriously. Wikipedias for everyone, and every word there is about ten syllabils long... Simplification, you lot call it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.82.99 (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

Paraphilia [...] refers to any [...] sexual interest other than sexual interest.

Obviously someone who has a clue what this term really means should fix this sentence so it means something. 96.10.251.86 (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd say a chapter in the Oxford textbook of psychopathology qualifies me as having a clue, but anyone can disagree with anything they like, of course. Nonetheless, there exist many potential definitions (all varying in how well they are supported by evidence), and a discussion of other text would start, of course, by someone suggesting some. — James Cantor (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Take out the 2nd 'sexual interest', change it to say 'refers to any powerful and persistent sexual interest in anything other than copulatory or precopulatory behavior.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubicon714 (talkcontribs) 13:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I can't tell whether I failed to grasp the valid reading of the article's first sentence or just found it clumsy, but I came on too strong with my remark. However, when I referred to having a clue I actually did not have in mind the sentence's author. I was thinking that I was too clueless on this topic to fix the sentence, since I would probably "fix" it by making it say something incorrect. If I had had a clue myself I would have been bold instead of just complaining. But, speaking of clumsy sentences, my own remarks were certainly ambiguous. In any event I am now going to remove the second 'sexual interest' per Rubicon714's advice.
I will add that I don't think referencing a source dated with a future year meets verifiability... (A source labeled as 2009 was the citation for the sentence in question in October of 2008.) But I think, Mr. Cantor, you overreacted to my complaint about the defining sentence, because you equated a sentence citing your work with your work. I guess you assumed that before I came to the discussion page to remark on this sentence I checked through the article history to see who wrote it and also followed the citation and found that the Wikipedia contribution and the citation shared an author? I did not in fact follow these steps. How many sentences in Wikipedia are written by the same person that wrote the respective source material? Why would you infer that a complaint about the Wikipedia sentence was a complaint about your status as a scholar? The sentence in question did not involve a quotation of source material and the source was offline -- I assumed the source, of whatever quality, was not being well represented in the article. I think you have leapt a bit far in viewing my critique of the Wikipedia sentence as anything to do with your cluefulness as a scholar. 96.10.251.86 (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you find any sentence clumsy, by all means write or propose a new one.
With regard to publication year, you are mistaken. Publication years of books are like the model years of cars. They are very often available in the calendar year prior to their formal publication year. If you look up the Oxford textbook of psychopathology in say the Library of Congress (www.loc.gov), you will indeed find it listed as 2009.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right about that part. In addition to books published art the end of a year, many books are published in the UK a few months before the US, and depending upon which country it is that you buy the book from, there can be a 1 year difference. 00:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I found the current iteration of the definition clumsy and difficult to parse. I would request, not an edit, but a layperson's summary to be annexed to the technical definition. 69.210.137.196 (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The current definition is absolutely clear to me. However, it would include rape (copulatory behaviour, but with non-consenting partner; etymologically parallel to pedophilia). Is this intentional? - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.120 (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The current definition would include paraphilic rape, but not (if you forgive the term) typical rape. That is, a person who prefers rape to consensual sex would be paraphilic, but a person who is "merely willing" to rape in order to get the sexual contact would not be paraphilic. The paraphilia for rape is often called "biastophilia." Whether any given rapist is biastophilic is one of the questions posed to forensic mental health experts; as you pointed out, whether a given rapist is biastophilic is analogous to whether a given child molester is pedophilic.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps the opening definition should replace "powerful and persistent sexual interest" with "powerful and persistent sexual preference"? And biastophilia should definitely be among the listed categories. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.99 (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

With my professional sexologist hat on, I'd have no strong objection. But, with my wiki editor hat on, that's not what the cited RS says. It's possible, of course, that there is another RS that does express the definition that way, but I am not aware of one off hand. Since I'm the author of the RS and that sentence, I'll go with whatever the remaining consensus here is.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a more explicit, more available, and less original RS is what is needed. DSM 4TR defines paraphilia as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving 1)nonhuman objects, 2)the suffering of humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or 3) children or other nonconsenting persons..." This sentence would eliminate at least two isues. The first is the issue of marginally original research: one person citing himself. If this happens, whether or not he has a clue becomes all-important. Debates about cluelessness would be inherently personal. The second would be the "phenotypically normal" versus "phenotypically similar" conflict. For example, desiring an unusually tall Asian girl wouldn't be considered paraphilic if one was an unusually tall Asian boy. BitterGrey (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Paraphilia template

I'm requesting some assistance here on Template_talk:Paraphilia, this is being tagged on these articles and I've concerns that it's being crowded with too many multilingual terms which don't even show on the DSM. Tyciol (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The neutrality of this article is disputed. To have a definition taken from a book a major wiki editor wrote, one not widely accepted (and indeed unknown until the last few months) by the psychiatric community is anomalous. To classify people still attracted to partners who get disfigured due to accident or disease, and anyone who masturbates, in the same general classification as pedophiles and necrophiles is to say the least controversial. 150.203.160.115 (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? It is not clear whether you are referring to me nor which edit it is you find objectionable.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure

I have added an external link to the main page. The author of the linked document is a colleague of mine (with whom I have published research articles on this topic). I though it appropriate to indicate that here.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added a new external link to the main page, consisting of a professional reading list on the paraphilias. Because I am myself the author of that list, I am indicating that here so that other editors may consider its appropriateness.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a chance that you could release your articles from the list for free download, convince your colleagues to do the same, and then add links to the reading list? Two have pdf links, but the others don't appear to be accessible without registration or a paid subscription. External links: sites requiring registration seems to apply here.
Also, it should also be noted that now half the external links on the article point to the poster's institution, and that many or most of the articles on the reading list that the new external link points to were written by authors associated with that institution. BitterGrey (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It is generally not possible for the authors of peer-reviewed articles to make them available for download: In the great majority of high-end journals, authors sign the copyrights over to the journal. The articles are, of course, available in any medical library. External links: sites requiring registration does not, in fact, apply here; the EL requires no registation or cost.

If you have specific research articles that you believe should be added to my list, I would be more than happy to hear about them. Because my research institution is (by far) the most productive in publishing on this topic, it would be rather peculiar if our work did not appear proportionately in any list on the topic. As I said, if you believe that there exist more current, more encompassing, or more highly cited than the ones on the list, feel free to list them. — James Cantor (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd point those seeking articles on specific topics to Google scholar, which ranks articles based on links and citations. This source is more neutral, and will probably update more often. Of course, Google Scholar would have the same restriction: most reading Wikipedia aren't in a medical library and don't have special accounts, and so can't access the information in the articles. Having access to the citations, but not the article, would only be useful to those who wish to cite an article that they haven't read. This isn't a practice that I or any other decent researcher should encourage. Short of this, useful information wouldn't be available to most wikipedians, thus External links: sites requiring registration applies.BitterGrey (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let's do what you suggest and use scholar.google: Go there, and type in "pedophilia." Look at the results, and see how many were written by me: Of the 5,650 papers, I am the author of 3 of the top 10. And how many were written either by me or by someone else in my department? Together, we produced 5 of the top 10. As I said, the list I provide in my EL includes me and my colleagues only in the same proportion that our work appears in the relevant literature. I introduce no bias in my list. Even your own strategy says to do exactly what I did.
— James Cantor (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
James Cantor appears nowhere in the top ten Google Scholar list when I do a search for "pedophilia". And that reading list suggested as an external link is extremely biased toward the sociobiological/disease model of sex and gender minorities. Jokestress (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I left a step out: I used only recent articles (meaning in the past five years). Such a time-restriction is necessary in doing such searches to reduce the effect of (forgive the math jargon) citation counts being a monotonic and increasing function...the number of times an article is cited goes only up, favoring older articles over newer ones. In a search limited to 2004 onward to reduce the time-bias, the results are as I said. Nonetheless, Jokestress left out even if one does the search with the time-bias in it, one still gets a result where 4 of the top 10 cites (now out of 16,400 hits) are from my research group (specificaly, from Kurt Fruend).
— James Cantor (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
"Yes, I left a step out"[1]. So basically, an attempt to repeat James Cantor's showed that reality was not as he reported, and he was forced to admit that he had misstated, biasing evidence in his favor. Somehow the inability to accurately Google doesn't fill me with confidence in this researcher.BitterGrey (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Note discussion elsewhere: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Input requested at paraphilia (...and Sexology, Etc...). BitterGrey (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Note discussion elsewhere: Wikipedia talk:External links#EL question at Paraphilia. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(Header updated to reflect plurality of links added:[2]BitterGrey (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Note #15

In note #15 there is a link to a discussion. The site (http://kalapa.nfshost.com) looks like a pedophilia-friendly board. People wanting to de-criminalize pedophilia, or something like that... I don't think this makes any good to Wikipedia.

15 "Kalapa / DSM and Pedophilia". 2007. http://kalapa.nfshost.com/viewtopic.php?id=17. Retrieved on 2007-12-25.

(I don't know how to sign, I'm not a Wikipedia user...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.49.0.99 (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That above comment is correct. Note #14 is also not usable as an information source on WP. I have deleted both.
(To sign a comment, follow your comment with four "tilde's", the squiggly line beneath on the escape key on most keyboards.)
— James Cantor (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Although the definition states "consenting adult human partners" isn't it a paraphilia too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.181 (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no current RS that includes homosexuality as a paraphilia. — James Cantor (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has become far too slanted toward the disease model POV. I reorganized the intro with a value-neutral first paragraph, a disease model second paragraph, and a non-disease model third paragraph. I also removed the external link added by James Cantor, which has clear WP:COI issues and has several WP:EL issues noted by other editors above. The article also has a lot of didactic style and assertions that should be backed up with citations. Jokestress (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Once the intro has restabilized at a neutral, well-supported consensus, we should probably update the other pages with intros based on the paraphilia article's into, such as List_of_paraphilias, etc.
Unfortunately, the disease model will continue to be overemphaised, since most of the peer reviewed work is written by doctors, and healthy, well-adjusted paraphilics tend not to become patients. At least we are out of the dark ages when doctors only knew what they learned from "patients" from prisons and morgues.BitterGrey (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Teratophilia merger

The result of this AfD debate was to merge teratophilia into this article. I feel that doing so would not be the best solution, because this article doesn't discuss individual paraphilias at all, and even if it did, teratophilia is one of the more obscure ones. Instead, I've merged it to List of paraphilias, where the one-line definition clearly belongs. Please let me know if you think this was done inappropriately. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)