![]() | 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 | Archive 6 |
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)
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).
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)
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)
This article is made up, right? Specially the final part. Flatulophilia? Forniturophilia? What the hell? -Unsigned
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
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)
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)
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)
What's that called? -Unsigned
List of fictional Paraphilia -Unsigned
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
Are these the real names? I don't doubt that the desires are real, just the names. -- WiccaIrish 09:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
How many people have paraphilias? A.Z. 03:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is a definition of “paraphilia” from a scholarly sexological dictionary:
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)
If any are legit, please create the page first and/or cite reliable secondary sources before readding them. Cheers. =) -- slakr\ talk / 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
I don't see it here or on the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tivaelydoc ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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 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 | Archive 6 |
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)
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).
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)
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)
This article is made up, right? Specially the final part. Flatulophilia? Forniturophilia? What the hell? -Unsigned
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
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)
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)
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)
What's that called? -Unsigned
List of fictional Paraphilia -Unsigned
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
Are these the real names? I don't doubt that the desires are real, just the names. -- WiccaIrish 09:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
How many people have paraphilias? A.Z. 03:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is a definition of “paraphilia” from a scholarly sexological dictionary:
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)
If any are legit, please create the page first and/or cite reliable secondary sources before readding them. Cheers. =) -- slakr\ talk / 17:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
I don't see it here or on the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tivaelydoc ( talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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. |