It is requested that an image or photograph of Paraphilia be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Paraphilia.
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Paraphilia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I feel the phrase "Homosexuality, now widely known to be a normal variant of human sexuality" is incorrect. IMHO, the word variant is a problem. It should read "Homosexuality, now widely known to be normal human sexuality". By adding the word "variant," the sentence makes homosexuality something beyond the norm and therefore, not normal. Spiel ( talk) 03:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn’t this page include the possibility of resolving Paraphilias through operant conditioning or classical conditioning? Byulwwe ( talk) 09:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
-Susan Nolen-Hoeksema suggests that, once established, masturbatory fantasies about the stimulus reinforce and broaden the paraphilic arousal.
This page itself deal with a form of positive reinforcement.
Shouldn’t it also deal with “positive punishment” for example? Byulwwe ( talk) 10:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
As the (very small) article is due to be deleted, copying here in case it is of use:
Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Nowadays "sexual perversion" and "sexual deviation" only have an historical and cultural value (this can also be deduced from the corresponding source), so they need to be contextualized. Moreover there's also a strong negative preconception behind these names and this makes even more important to give them a context. Digressivo ( talk) 20:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This article mentions almost every paraphilia so prevalence of them is appropriate. The Epidemiology section has the sentence "Sexual masochism has been found to be the most commonly observed paraphilia in women, with approximately 1 in 20 cases of sexual masochism being female" so including prevalence of zoophilia or pedophilia is equal. Andythegrump seems to be hunting my edits and only permitting what he desires to be in articles. Foorgood ( talk) 01:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Please work constructively together to determine which materials and sources are appropriate for these pages. Disparaging other editors and assuming bad faith is poor form. If the sources do not belong in this article, then make a case for that using Wikipedia editorial guidelines. And just one more time... please don't bite other editors and scare them away. Nobody owns Wikipedia articles. We're expected to work collaboratively with each other to make improvements. It would be best to stop the edits and reverts and calmly discuss the sources and refer to Wikipedia guidelines to determine whether they are relevant to this page, and whether the sources are reliable. It would be best to develop a consensus if possible. Hist9600 ( talk) 05:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Get a fucking clue. You are reporting the disputed results of 70-year-old research on zoophilia as objective data, and misrepresenting what the source on pedophilia actually says. Go write about Pokemon instead.
Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. The civility policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.
Hist9600 ( talk) 15:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus. A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.
please change this odd phrasing! doesn't make sense to me. 2A02:8109:B6BF:80BC:39D4:1050:CC50:2D5E ( talk) 05:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Both the DSM-5 (2013) and the ICD-11 (2022) have taken key steps to depathologize paraphilias by drawing a clear distinction between paraphilic/atypical sexual interests and "paraphilic disorders".
The quick-and-dirty summary in both cases being that simply having a paraphilia is not indicative of poor mental health and does not constitute a psychiatric disorder, and that the term "paraphilic disorder" should be used to refer to a specific circumstance in which the existence of a paraphilia causes significant distress or the potential for other harm.
But as things stand right now, this article is heavily medicalized, loosely using terms like "perversion", "disorder", "diagnosis", "management", "epidemiology", and generally presenting the concept of paraphilia as a medical disorder.
In light of those updated international psychiatric guidelines, as well as wikipedia editing guidelines about neutrality and accuracy, I'd like to suggest that this page be edited to clearly reflect the current psychiatric consensus, the differences between "paraphilias" and "paraphilic disorders" (which can probably make up its own section) and the general social/medical movement towards depathologization of atypical sexual interests. FuwaFuwaDL ( talk) 16:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It is requested that an image or photograph of Paraphilia be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Paraphilia.
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Paraphilia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I feel the phrase "Homosexuality, now widely known to be a normal variant of human sexuality" is incorrect. IMHO, the word variant is a problem. It should read "Homosexuality, now widely known to be normal human sexuality". By adding the word "variant," the sentence makes homosexuality something beyond the norm and therefore, not normal. Spiel ( talk) 03:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn’t this page include the possibility of resolving Paraphilias through operant conditioning or classical conditioning? Byulwwe ( talk) 09:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
-Susan Nolen-Hoeksema suggests that, once established, masturbatory fantasies about the stimulus reinforce and broaden the paraphilic arousal.
This page itself deal with a form of positive reinforcement.
Shouldn’t it also deal with “positive punishment” for example? Byulwwe ( talk) 10:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
As the (very small) article is due to be deleted, copying here in case it is of use:
Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Nowadays "sexual perversion" and "sexual deviation" only have an historical and cultural value (this can also be deduced from the corresponding source), so they need to be contextualized. Moreover there's also a strong negative preconception behind these names and this makes even more important to give them a context. Digressivo ( talk) 20:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
This article mentions almost every paraphilia so prevalence of them is appropriate. The Epidemiology section has the sentence "Sexual masochism has been found to be the most commonly observed paraphilia in women, with approximately 1 in 20 cases of sexual masochism being female" so including prevalence of zoophilia or pedophilia is equal. Andythegrump seems to be hunting my edits and only permitting what he desires to be in articles. Foorgood ( talk) 01:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Please work constructively together to determine which materials and sources are appropriate for these pages. Disparaging other editors and assuming bad faith is poor form. If the sources do not belong in this article, then make a case for that using Wikipedia editorial guidelines. And just one more time... please don't bite other editors and scare them away. Nobody owns Wikipedia articles. We're expected to work collaboratively with each other to make improvements. It would be best to stop the edits and reverts and calmly discuss the sources and refer to Wikipedia guidelines to determine whether they are relevant to this page, and whether the sources are reliable. It would be best to develop a consensus if possible. Hist9600 ( talk) 05:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Get a fucking clue. You are reporting the disputed results of 70-year-old research on zoophilia as objective data, and misrepresenting what the source on pedophilia actually says. Go write about Pokemon instead.
Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars. The civility policy describes the standards expected of users and provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. Wikipedia's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Wikipedia, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.
Hist9600 ( talk) 15:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus. A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.
please change this odd phrasing! doesn't make sense to me. 2A02:8109:B6BF:80BC:39D4:1050:CC50:2D5E ( talk) 05:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Both the DSM-5 (2013) and the ICD-11 (2022) have taken key steps to depathologize paraphilias by drawing a clear distinction between paraphilic/atypical sexual interests and "paraphilic disorders".
The quick-and-dirty summary in both cases being that simply having a paraphilia is not indicative of poor mental health and does not constitute a psychiatric disorder, and that the term "paraphilic disorder" should be used to refer to a specific circumstance in which the existence of a paraphilia causes significant distress or the potential for other harm.
But as things stand right now, this article is heavily medicalized, loosely using terms like "perversion", "disorder", "diagnosis", "management", "epidemiology", and generally presenting the concept of paraphilia as a medical disorder.
In light of those updated international psychiatric guidelines, as well as wikipedia editing guidelines about neutrality and accuracy, I'd like to suggest that this page be edited to clearly reflect the current psychiatric consensus, the differences between "paraphilias" and "paraphilic disorders" (which can probably make up its own section) and the general social/medical movement towards depathologization of atypical sexual interests. FuwaFuwaDL ( talk) 16:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)