![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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
Is this for real? -- ZekeMacNeil 04:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
See Talk:Teratophilia for details. - Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 11:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
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? -- Pak aran 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
"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)
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:
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)
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)
What about this one? Chris 03:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing this is false. Delete? -- Wakingrufus 08:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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.
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)
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)
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)
Can sexual addiction be considered as a Paraphilia? Saaraleigh 14:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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
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
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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
Is this for real? -- ZekeMacNeil 04:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
See Talk:Teratophilia for details. - Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 11:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
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? -- Pak aran 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
"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)
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:
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)
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)
What about this one? Chris 03:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing this is false. Delete? -- Wakingrufus 08:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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.
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)
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)
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)
Can sexual addiction be considered as a Paraphilia? Saaraleigh 14:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
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
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
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |