Talk:Sadism and masochism (as medical terms)

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

Some dates appear wrong here. The article states the following:

In 1498, the Italian philosopher Pico della Mirandola described a man who needed to be flogged before he could have sex (Farin 1990).

However, when we read the article on this philosopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_della_Mirandola), the dates of his life time are given as (February 24, 1463 -November 17, 1494) .

If this philosopher died in 1494, he could not described the case in 1498. Some dates obviously need correction!

Anil Aggrawal Professor, Maulana Azad Medical College, Anil1956 (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but according to DSM IV TR's very own page [1] and BehaveNet [2], the statement in this wiki article ("However, in the DSM-IV TR, published in 2000, sadomasochistic behavior can be diagnosed if the patient acts on these sexual urges, even if it is consensual") is not right. Editing now. --79.120.8.94 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 2LAZY2LOGIN[reply]

Different standarts?!

To me it#s hard to bear to recognize, that there are different standarts in german and english explanation and framing the SM facts. Being legal means to me there are doctors, who think they have the allowence to educate me in this false way.

More than one time they try to do this. Urging on a mechanic which is normalized by law. Being real educated as an indipendent being, having natural sex, this disorder threatens me.Democrat card!--Danaide (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History lesson

This article is just one big history lesson. --Penbat (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mangled meaning

"Some sado-sexual practices may in fact stem from an instinctive wish to punish the object of sexual attraction for provoking sexual arousal as a perceived lack of respect, even female animals can have this reaction."

What does this mean? That some men can get sexual aroused by feeling a lack of respect...from a female animal? Like, a cat or dog? What does a "perceived lack of respect" from an animal even mean? Or does this mean that female animals can get aroused from a perceived lack of respect? That's ludicrous. This ambiguity is not helped by the lack of an example that might go a ways to helping explain this statement.

Since this is also unsourced, I wanted to post this comment before removing this uncited statement outright, just in case someone can redeem it. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Sadism and masochism (as medical terms)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sadism and masochism (as medical terms)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "millon":

From Personality disorder: Millon, Theodore (1996). Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 226. ISBN 0-471-01186-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
From Theodore Millon: Millon, Theodore (2004). Personality Disorders in Modern Life. John Wiley and Sons. p. 290. ISBN 0-471-23734-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
From Antisocial personality disorder: Millon, Theodore, Personality Disorders in Modern Life, 2004

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being BOLD

After removing everything that was unsourced (which was alot), I realized that everything remaining is all from the same non-RS website. (An advocacy website calling for revisions to the ICD-10 to remove sexual interests from that manual.) So, I am changing this into a relevant redirect.— James Cantor (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Cantor, a lot (not all) of the content was supported by that source (revisef65.org), but what was in the article obviously could have been supported by better sources. I'm not sure that the article should have been essentially deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Flyer. I hear your point. I had started by looking for appropriate sources, but every claim seemed like it should be on a different page, such as BDSM or sadomasochism, or on on a page that was about sexual sadism (only) or sexual masochism (only). (And many of the claims appear on one of those already.) There actually was very little about the intersection of sadism and masochism when restricted to their medical uses (except for Op/Ed's opposing any paraphilia being a diagnosed condition, which would be better placed at Paraphilia). If there is enough material to justify a whole page unto itself, I certainly would not oppose reverting.— James Cantor (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]