Talk:Exhibitionism

Image

WHY DOES THIS PAGE NOT HAVE AN IMAGE? IT SURELY NEEDS ONE!

Oh My Ghot! But such photos?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.137.194 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

FUCK YOU. I DID NOT WANT TO SEE THAT. SOMEONE REMOVE IT, THIS PAGE DOES NOT NEED AN IMAGE 2600:E00F:4008:16:0:0:0:2E (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

consensual?

Exhibitionism does not, and cannot, have any legal implications for either the exposer or the person being exposed to, because both exposer and exposed are implicitly consensual (the exposer wants to be seen, and the exposed welcomes the opportunity to look).

Perhaps I am taking this sentence out of context but it is confusing to me why there is always implicit consent. Sure there is implicit consent when one is at a strip joint, or at some kind of swingers party or such. But if one is at a football game and some guy runs out into the field naked, or if you are walking down the street and some guy opens his rain coat revealing himself, there is surely no implicit consent. Again, perhaps this sentence is referring to a certain form of Exhibitionism but I find it unclear as certainly Exhibitionism can and does have legal implications when referring to exhibitionism done in public.

Non Sexual Exhibitionism?

While certainly exhibitionism can be done for an erotic turn on, most streaking isn't done for that reason but instead for the thrill of breaking societal norms. So would being naked in public for the shock value such as in streaking still be considered exhibitionism?

Links

Hello, I guess including a link to an internet pornographic place where real ordinary people send photos of naked and sexual images (of females, and intended for males in this case) for others to see freely, would not be allowed. I find it is interesting to have a link to a real place where you can "see" sexual exhibitionism. The link I suggest is: http://*****.com/ I don't really mind it not being allowed, I don't really know if it would be good or bad for the wikipedia and the encyclopedic knowledge form, but I would certainly like to know why could it be or not be good in your opinion and the wikipedia rules on the matter. --Pablo2garcia

The big problem with that site (which I, being cynical, will assume that you own) is that it's a paysite, and would thus violate the "no advertising" rule. 128.226.230.90 01:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't own it, but let's say I do. It is a pay site but has two very abundant and for me satisfactory non paying sections, separeted from the rest by type of content (no "big" action), links to those parts "cuold" be used: http://hardcore-exhibitionist.com and http://exhibitionist-paradise.com . I assume the problem you point out. --Pablo2garcia

Exhibitionist Post is a completely free site that is part of a much larger sociological project on human sexuality. The project has support in the academic realm. That link had been there for a long time before with no controversy. It should be replaced. APatcher 09:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Male Exhibitionism

I miss any mentioning of the difference in attitude to male and female exhibitionism. Men are very likely to be prosecuted even when no aggression or harassment is involved. Some men are even subjected to some cruel form of "treatment" which is designed to reduce their libido! I am not an expert on this matter, but can someone with more information add this to the article? Hummel 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be some discussion the differing attitudes with regards to male and female exhibitionism, especially with regard to how they are often treated differently under the law. Also the article should differentiate between the traditional male flasher in a trench coat who's mainly looking to shock or scare woman for his sexual pleasure vs. the exhibitionist woman who gets off on the positive reaction of men she flashes. --Cab88 09:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Erect penis?

wtf is up with the picture of the erect penis? I don't think that belongs in this article.

lol, well it certainly would be an example of exhibitionism if somebody put their erect penis here! Mathmo 06:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And I don't think sexism nor heterocentrism belong in this article either. I don't think the last picture was accurate because it stated that the male was flashing, but all he was doing was lifting his shirt a little. That is not exhibitionism (just read the article, it says so). Therefore I replaced it with a guy in the act of truly flashing (exhibitionism). HotDog 04:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a demonstration of exhibitionism, though. It is, however, needlessly vulgar and pornographic. The "two people flashing in a bar" at least demonstrated what the article is talking about, rather than merely saying, "look, I got an erection onto Wikipedia."

If the man were flashing his penis in public, rather than merely onto Wikipedia, I might find it more acceptable. That said, the only exhibitionism in that picture was the act of putting an erection on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not an outlet for your exhibitionism. (And by that I don't mean "go out in public, show your penis, take a picture, and upload it;" a famous or demonstrative example is always better than a contrived one. The "bar" picture was not famous, but at least it was demonstrative.) Cherry Cotton 01:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the man was flashing his penis in public (it was in a car while he was driving). The "bar" picture you mentioned is misleading because it stated that the male was flashing, but all he was doing was lifting his shirt a little. That is not exhibitionism (just read the article, it says so).

However, because you were offended by an erection, I'll post two pictures that clearly demonstrate exhibitionism (while making sure they are ones that don't offend your delicate sensibilities).

--HotDog 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Could scantily clad mean exhibitionistic?

Does a proclivity toward showing a lot of cleavage and otherwise dressing like a hootchie mama count as exhibitionistism? If so a few changes are needed in this article. The following sentences sounded bogus:

Meanwhile, media events like awards shows and concerts devote considerable resources to highlighting female celebrities' revealing costumes and perceived sexual personas. In the United States, celebrities are encouraged by the media towards exhibitionism, examples being papparazi-captured celebrity nudity, or nude scenes in movies.

Sneaky papparazi-captured celebrity nudity often has nothing to do with exhibitionistism. Nude scenes in movies have nothing to do with exhibitionistism with possible exeption of porn. And a celebrity buying a $10,000 dress to preen for papparazi at the Oscars ain't exhibitionism. I deleted both sentences.

Martymachlia

I have merged the content, "Martymachlia is the paraphilia involving sexual attraction to having others watch during a sexual act", into this article, and made Martymachlia a redirect to this article. Feel free to rewrite this or do whatever else necessary with it. --Xyzzyplugh 18:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Uncensored Image?

Don't you think the Soccerflasher.jpg picture needs censor (or maybe remove)? I don't think that everybody, who opens the Exhibitionism page, have to see a nude man (and it shouldn't be forgotten that yjere is not an adult content protection in Wikipedia for the kids). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahmet Keles (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

It is Wikipedia policy to not censor images or other content. That policy can be found here. That particular image realistically depicts the article's subject, and is what one would expect to see in an encyclopedia article about a "psychological need and pattern of behavior to exhibit naked parts of the body to other people". The current consensus among editors of this page seems to be to keep the image as it is in the article. Robotman1974 15:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

but really though, its hard to browse wikipedia when everyone thinks your looking at porn. 66.169.197.170 01:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt any professional encyclopedia would actually show such nudity for a non-anatomical article. It seems gratuitous and I cannot share the link to this page (and its clinical definitions it contains) for reasons of these images. BrotherSulayman (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The pictures illustrate what the article is about, no more and no less. It is extremely important not to censor pictures. You take offense because they show people showing their naked bodies, other people take offense for other illustrations for other reasons. So, if you know that you don't like the pictures, just use another source of information if you want to know more about exhibitionism. Lova Falk talk 13:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Other meaning for the word "Exhibitionist"

I believe that around the 10th century, when Christianity was expanding it's boundaries and building mew churches it used a valuable tool of carving "exhibitionists" on the outside walls of it's churches. These were sex scenes of all natures which helped to pull in the crowds and get poeple to convert to christianity. I am not an historian, but saw this on a BBC documentary many years ago.

The Oxford English Dictionary refers to exhibitionism as being "any behaviour that is intended to attract attention to oneself," without any mention of nudity. Whereas a common form of exhibitionism does involve nudity, I do feel there ought to be at least some kind of acknowledgement of the fact that it need not involve nakedness.

Interesting point about 10th century use, but Oxford having no mention of nudity, that is not so. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary (online) clearly shows exhibitionism with two definitions: 1) seeking attention 2) exposing genitals

1 extravagant behaviour that is intended to attract attention to oneself.
2 (Psychiatry) a mental condition characterized by the compulsion to display one’s genitals in public.

Of note is that being an exhibitionist for a day or week is does not classify a person as having the mental condition of "exhibitionism" as defined by the [WHO] ICD-10 Version 2007. ICD-10

A recurrent or persistent tendency to expose the genitalia to strangers (usually of the opposite sex) or to people in public places, without inviting or intending closer contact. There is usually, but not invariably, sexual excitement at the time of the exposure and the act is commonly followed by masturbation.

Specifically the 2000 American Psychiatric Association link requires both of these criteria for a clinical diagnosis of 302.4 Exhibitionism:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the exposure of one's genitals to an unsuspecting stranger.
B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

I see that some work is needed to bring this article up to the same level as Voyeurism and I'll take a gander at that task.
Peace. BodyPride (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dubious - flashing definition

The flashing definition as given on this page doesn't agree with what I'm used to. Perhaps it's a North American/Commonwealth thing but from my experience flashing and flasher is far more commonly used to refer to males who go around exposing their genitalia then females exposing their breasts. While this is perhaps not exhibitionism but simply indecent exposure, if we're going to give a definition of flashing here it's important we get it right. Try doing a search for flashing male on Google to confirm this usage is common Nil Einne 02:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

flasher

A google search for "flashing" brings up roofing, and of course "male flasher" would bring up what you suggest, but we're not talking about indecent exposure here, which is what "male flasher" implies anyway. When I did a google search on "flasher", this is what came up: http://www.beatlespennylane.com/Penny_Lane_Live/Flasher.jpg.

Looks to me like a girlie with a bare boob. Am I wrong? 68.173.16.81 08:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Modern Technology

Although when I search for scholarly studies on it -my search gets bogged down with internet porn ads -There is a new breed of exhibitionist who will expose herself (I believe that men do this too) -through a webcam to a public internet chatroom. I have personally met women who do this and seem perfectly normal in every other way. It seems that the internet has provided a "safe" outlet for this behavior. Unfortunately I am not finding anything that really mentions the internet. Astrocloud 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Implications section

I added the accuracy-section tag to this section for two reasons. First, the statement "Exhibitionism does not, and cannot, have any legal implications for either the exposer or the person being exposed to, because both exposer and exposed are implicitly consensual..." would not be true if one lived in a one of the many countries that follows strict interpretations of Islamic Sharia law such as Saudi Arabia. I fairly certain there would be harsh legal consequences in said countries regardless of whether there was mutual consent. Also, the term "Exhibitionism", as I have heard it used does not always imply consent between all parties.

Second, the statement "However, if the exposing individual shows an aggressive or criminal behavior, that is indecent exposure and is a separate phenomenon from exhibitionism and flashing." is not completely accurate either. The terms "exhibitionism" and "flashing" can define actions that qualify as a crime (i.e. indecent exposure) in many countries. The flashing of female breasts that occurs a Mardi Gras parades in New Orleans is technically a criminal act though enforcement of said laws has been lax at times. The level of criminality may very (such as misdemeanor vs felony) but that does not means it's not "indecent exposure" under the law. It seems this article is trying to make a distinction between consensual exhibitionism and flashing that may or may not always exist, depending on how the terms are used, and under what laws apply to the exhibitionist or flasher. --Cab88 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw your tag and before I read your explanation, I was noticing different inaccuracies as well. I don't have DSM-IV to compare to the Text Revision (and I'm not for certain that the author was referring to IV and not IV-TR), but either they have changed the wording or the quote and paraphrasing are not from the DSM. Yet the section in question is written in a way that might mislead one to think that they were. Also, the section begins with mention of the DSM, while not specifying the point at which the information ceases to be from the DSM.

Further, "indecent exposure" is not a mental illness classified by the DSM--rather, it is a legal term. I don't think the two (Exhibitionism and Indecent Exposure) can be compared side-by-side like that because one is a mental disorder, and the other is a legal offense. At any rate, I looked at my DSM-IV-TR (I do not have DSM-IV at hand), and this is all that section 302.4 states about exhibitionism:

"The paraphilic focus in Exhibitionism involves the exposure of one's genitals to a stranger. Sometimes the individual masturbates while exposing himself (or while fantasizing exposing himself). If the person acts on these urges, there is generally no attempt at further sexual activity with the stranger. In some cases, the individual has the sexually arousing fantasy that the observer will become sexually aroused. The onset usually occurs before age 18 years, although it can begin at a later age. Few arrests are made in the older age groups, which may suggest that the condition becomes less severe after age 40 years

Diagnostic criteria for 302.4 Exhibitionism

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the exposure of one's genitals to an unsuspecting stranger.

B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty (p. 569)."

70.59.146.117 (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Exhibitionism and Goth subculture

This sentence strikes me as somewhat odd: "Night clubs and goth bars encourage mild exhibitionism to enhance the venue's atmosphere."

I would like to have a reliable source to the alleged fact that "goth bars encourage exhibitionism". I suspect this is a false assumption by the editor (violating WP:NOR) based on the belief that Goth subculture is highly eroticized - which is true for some aspects. However, I have never heard of the active encouragement of exhibitionism in goth bars and have never made that experience myself (being a "metalhead", I have had numerous contacts with active Goths and have frequented quite a number of venues catering to Goth subculture). That is a rather gross extrapolation. Vargher (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Images and captions

While responding to a request at WP:MCQ#Exhibitionism to allow the use of the image Image:Jello biafra mooning.jpg in this article, I took a look at the other images currently used in this article, and I have to say I find the relevance of some of them, not to mention the captions applied to them, questionable to say the least. For example, this image at the top of the article, apparently depicting female UVM students attending a public "nude bike ride" event, was captioned simply "Exhibitionists"!

Right, time for a reality check here. We have an image depicting three recognizable persons in varying states of undress, apparently taken with the subjects' consent but with no indication that the subjects were asked to sign model releases or even informed of the intent to publish the image on Wikipedia. While the photographer at least argues that, by attending a public event and posing for the photograph, the subjects gave implicit permission to have their photos taken and published, attaching the label "exhibitionist" to the photo is a classic example of a use that could get one sued even if the subject had signed a standard model release. The same goes for the other photos. Presumably Jello Biafra knew what he was getting into when he mooned a hacker convention, but even he would have every right to be pissed off if we labeled him an exhibitionist without permission or any evidence of the factuality of the claims.

I've edited the image captions to make them more neutral, but I'm not sure that's enough. In fact, I'm rather surprised at how weakly related to the subject any of these images are. Since the article is about exhibitionism, one would naïvely expect to find at least one picture actually showing clearly exhibitionist behavior. At the moment, what we have instead is a bunch of photos depicting people flashing or nude in public, with little or no concrete evidence of sexual motivation, plus one illustration from Marquis de Sade showing various sexual acts but, at least without additional context, no indication of these being carried out in public. That's pretty weak. Surely, by the very nature of the thing, there shouldn't be any difficulty in finding pictures of exhibitionists, should there? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the picture offensive. I don't think it belongs in wikipedia and I don't think it relates to the subject, but to teen behaviour. Shlomit Lir (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The captions seem improved, and I have to agree that the illustration from DeSade looks out of place, but the the image of the 3 women flashing certainly has erotic overtones and therefore seems appropriate. The image of the couple flashing seems only to indicate a lack of inhibitions, not actual exhibitionism, so it's inclusion is rather weak. In short, only the most "provocative" of the 3 seems to be right for this article. Since it is only very mildly provocative it doesn't even seem to justify the use of a linkimage. And as for concerns raised by Shlomit Lir, please review wikipedia is not censored censored. The standard we apply would be regarding the images' utility to the article, not their potential to offend individual editors or readers. Doc Tropics 06:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

cyclic definition

I don't think it's correct to define exhibitionism using the term apodysophilia as that wiki page redirects right back here: cyclic. Since apodysophilia is considered a "rarely used term" why in the world use it here. I'm not sure of what correction is due, but wanted to point it out to more savvy wiki folks. Thinking further, an old version of the apodysophilia wiki page seems better, and then change that page's link from nudism to exhibitionism. Thoughts? BodyPride (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Celebrity section

I deleted the Celebrity Exhibitionsm section as it was unreferenced, and as such is a violation of WP:BLP. For example, Lindsay Lohan was listed there, and I am pretty sure that she has stated in the past that she won't be doing any nude scenes. As for the others, well, it does come under the realm of WP:OR as without reliable sources that state that they are exhibitionists, it is original research. Although I will admit that it would probably be quite easy to find a source that states that Pamela Anderson is an exhibitionist...

In any case, I feel it is best to remove that section in its entirety and only put it back in when there are references to back up the section. Stephen! ^Coming... 21:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The definition and illustrations are wrong.

The definition is wrong, as are the illustrations. As clear from any dictionary (Merriam-Webster, OED, American Heritage), exhibitionism only refers to the sexual practice of displaying one's private parts for the purpose of self-arousal of the individual performing it, in front of involuntary observers. Not to public nudity in general. Use of the word for other types of situations is metaphorical and derogative. It's absurd to regard every woman in history that reportedly appeared nude publicly for one purpose or another as an exhibitionist. The images are also irrelevant, because they clearly show erotic "flashing" by professional models in porn context, intended not to stimulate the flasher but the public. A man with a long coat in the woods would be a more appropriate illustration. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct.— James Cantor (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions are not controlling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've re-written the lede, removed the pics, and deleted text which was not really about exhibitionism. Page still needs work, though.— James Cantor (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits, as they removed a great deal of material which has been in the article for a quite a long time, and you cited no sourcs to support your removals, except your on say-so, i.e. "This is not exhibitionism." Perhaps some of your changes are appropriate, perhaps not, but I have Reverted your Bold edit, and the next step (per WP:BRD) is Discussion. Please make your case for those changes here, being specific about why you believe they do not belong in the article (and a dictionary definition is not sufficient grounds) and citing sources to support your contention. If you get a consensus of editors here who agree with you, then fine, the edits can be restored, but please do not restore your deletions without a consensus to do so. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, in case you're interested, your user page clain to be a psychologist and sex researcher does not give you any special privileges in terms of shaping this article -- you still must cite sources and get a consensus when yoour edits are disputed. What your expertise gives you, of course, is knowledge about what sources to cite in support of your contentions. You cannot, however, own the article and re-configure it the way you want to simply on the basis of your supposed qualifications -- as they say, on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog, and we have no way of knowing that you are who you say you are. That's why we require that information be supported by citations from reiable sources, especially when disputed or controversial. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes

As per WP:BRD and the above request, I am fleshing out the reasons for my proposed changes. For reference, the lede/definition I propose is: Exhibitionism refers to the desire to expose one's genitals to non-consenting person(s) for one's own sexual gratification. Exhibitionism is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a paraphilia and should not be confused with streaking, flashing, mooning, or other public nudity engaged in as part of a prank or other non-sexual motivation. Many, many RS's support that definition, including the distinction between actual exhibitionism and mere public nudity:

• Aggrawal, A. (2009). Forensi

c and medico-legal aspects of sexual crimes and unusual sexual practices. NY: CRC Press.

• American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
• Cantor, J. M., Blanchard, R., & Barbaree, H. E. (2009). Sexual disorders. In P. H. Blaney & T. Millon (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychopathology (2nd ed.) (pp. 527–548). New York: Oxford University Press.
• LeVay, S., & Balwin, J. (2009). Human sexuality (3rd. ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assc.

My remaining edits were, of course, to delete the pics and text that were not about exhibitionism. (It is not for me to justify the deletion, however, as it is for other editors to justify their retention.)

While I had my notes out, I thought folks would want to include:

When asked the ages at which they first experienced erotic fantasies and urges to expose, the modal number of exhibitionists report 13-16 years of age.

• Freund, K., Watson, R., & Rienzo, D. (1988). The value of self-reports in the study of voyeurism and exhibitionism. Annals of Sex Research, 2, 243-262.

Telephone scatalogia (sexual gratification from exposing nonconsenting persons to vulgar/sexual language over telephones) has bee described as a variant of exhibitionism.

• Hirschfeld, M. (1938). Sexual anomalies and perversions: Physical and psychological development, diagnosis and treatment (new and rev. ed.). London: Encyclopaedic Press.
• Nadler, R. P. (1968). Approach to psychodynamics of obscene telephone calls. New York State Journal of Medicine, 68, 521-526.

As a side note, I have not and have never asked anyone to accept anything I have ever said on the basis of my real world identity. (Two of the sources justifying my proposed lede were already on the page and do not need to be repeated, and I do not need to cite sources to delete text irrelevant to the page.) A healthy dose of WP:AGF would go a long way.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Remembering that we are a popular encyclopedia for the general public and not a medical encyclopedia, could you please address the differences between the official psychological definition of exhibitionism and what it is understood to be in common parlance? Also, has the official definition changed significantly since "exhibitionism" was first used to describe certain behaviors? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

In the psychiatric/medical/paraphilic type, it has to be exposure to nonconsenting/unsuspecting strangers and it has to be for sexual gratification. I wouldn't say the official definition has changed much over the years, but there is no single official definition. The American Psychiatric Association has one, the World Health Organization has one, and major sexology authors and RSs use others. They all include those two central aspects, however.

As a side note, after my having 5,000 edits here over 4 years, and after having written and spoken for both published print encyclopedias on this topic as well as for popular audiences (nevermind being a professional editor), I'm rather confident in my ability to adjust language to my audience. Can we take just a deep breath here a second? I'm on your side.

— James Cantor (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

r to Beyond My Ken's revert with the diff saying there is an open question here.

Sorry, I must be missing it? I see only your question above, asking how the clinical definition differs from common parlance, and I said that the clinical one includes those two aspects that I put in boldface. What's remaining?— James Cantor (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I missed it, my fault, sorry. I didn't see your response above from 9/3.

Actually, you misunderstood the point of my question, which was not about the tone of the writing but about the scope of the article. Here's my concern: you want the article to be solely about the medical/psychological definition. I think there's another, broader popular definition of "exhibitionism" that would be irradicated by your proposed sweeping changes. We need to cover both parts of the subject. The lede, for instance can say "popularly, exhibitionism is commonly consider to be X, but psychologists define it as Y." This can be followed by the medical/psychological section(s), followed by the extended, popular definition. This covers all the ground, gives us accurate information as to the formal definition but also doesn't lose the colloquial stuff.

If this scheme is of interest to you, I'd be glad to work on it with you (if other editors don't chime in with objections or concerns) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There already exist several WP articles about the non-medical sense of the term: I included links to each of them (flashing, streaking, and indecent exposure). None of those pages covers the medical material. So, the most logical thing would be for the page with the medical term to contain the medical information and for the pages with the non-medical terms to contain the non-medical information, and for each to link to the other, which is exactly what my version does. You have now reverted my well-formed, well-RS'ed edits several times, despite that they have all been entirely consistent with WP guidelines. (And despite that several of the edits were to revolve untreated problems, such as UNDUE.) I believe now you have an obligation you return my edits to the mainpage and that you have the onus to produce RS's to justify the inclusion of the material I deleted. You will notice that the text I deleted was nearly entirely unreferenced, and the references that I deleted did not actually use the term "exhibitionism" at all: The material was merely pasted here by prior editors who thought they knew what the word meant and added it only on their own OR. As I said, I think the appropriate thing here is for you to return my edits and to propose here further changes...after double-checking whether the deleted text and sources really belonged here in the first place.— James Cantor (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, James Cantor, there is no onus on me restore your edits, the only onus here is for the two of us to come to some consensus or, failing that, to get a third opinion. Please re-consider the scheme I outlined above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant only to offer you the opportunity to demonstrate your willingness to participate in productive rather than POINTy editing.

You have deleted from the page text that is clearly well-sourced, and you have restored to the page text that I clearly indicated was unsourced. (And still is.) Your repeating those does indeed give you the onus to justify them.

I am perfectly happy with seeking third opinions or an RfC. So, I will indicate the problematic text for new editors until you have had some time to look for sources to justify your inclusion of them.

— James Cantor (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I see, and you have shown your willingness to cooperate by tag-bombing the article.

In avy case, you are misrepresentying my opinion, which is that there's no problem with your stuff going into the article, I just believe it should go into an article with broader scope than you think. We are not a medical encycylopedia, we are a popular encyclopedia, and our articles shoud cover the entire subject, not just the technical aspects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've filed a WP:3O request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Filing a 3O is perfectly fine; but I do not believe you correctly indicated the problem. The problem is not about what you versus I think the scope of the article should be, but what that RSs say the scope of the article should be. You have not (and the current page does not) provide a single RS for the non-medical use of the term. Rather, you have repeatedly deleted the very RS'ed definition I provided. It makes little sense for you say that you have no problem with "my stuff" going into the article after you have removed it three times and rejected my invitation to return it yourself.— James Cantor (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the scope of the article is determined by what RSs say, but you want to use only RSs that deal with the medical/psychological defintion, and I want to use other RSs that deal with a broader scope, the popular use of the term. These are not necessarily contradictory, they are, as Stephen Jay Gould says different "magisteria". (And, please, I didn't write the article, so kindly stop referring to what "I" put in to it. Approximately 5-600 editors have worked on this article over the years, this being a collaborative project. I've mostly contributed to formatting and copyediting.) I have removed "your stuff" because yuou have not simply added it to the article, you want it to be the article, and there is no consensus for doing that: certainly the 5-600 previous editors didn't see it that way.

I've dropped comments on the talk pages of WikiProject Psychlogy, WikiProject Sexuality, and WikiProject Nudity, the three projects that claim jurisdiction for this article, alerting them to this discussion, in the hope of getting some additional input. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, please leave the article at its status quo ante while this discussion is ongoing - there will be plenty of time once a consensus is reached to make changes, and there is no deadline to finish Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I want to use only the RSs that deal with exhibitionism. None of the challenged RSs use the word at all, and there is no RS claiming to be about the same concept merely using a different name. Rather we only have sources that some editor believed was the same thing on the basis of no RS at all...Which is, of course, OR. (When you revert unsourced text to a page after an editor has noted it was unsourced, you do indeed become "responsible" for its inclusion.)

That said, there is a common language sense of the word exhibitionism: But that other sense is not really a sexual one at all, it refers to being a general "show off." It is not a synonym for "public nudity", which is the unsourced meaning you keep returning to the page without any source. (I have no opposition to that sense of the term being on the page, so long as it's with RSs that are currently lacking.)

— James Cantor (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, you're arguing circularly. You believe that the medical/psychological defintiion of "exhibitionism" is the only relevant one, so you ant to cit only RSs that deal with that, to the exclusion of others. That would, per se, reduce the scope of the article to that definition. I believe your perception is, perhaps because of your profession, overly limited in that there is another, equally valid definition, the "folk psychology" which describes a number of behaviors people call "exhibitionism". I fully accept that psychologists don't include those behaviors in their definition, and I'm fully willing that the section on the psychological aspects will not deal with them, but I am not willing to have the scope of the article so drastically reduced when it clearly is a legitimate use of the word, albeit not your professions use. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi guys, my take on this is that if reliable sources exist that describe exhibitionism as other than the medical/psychological concept, then that viewpoint ought to be acknowledged on this page. The acknowledgement may be quite short, such as e.g. a statement that this article is about the DSM entity, flashing etc. may also be considered exhibitionism in some contexts. Beyond My Ken has the burden of proof to provide these sources to this discussion as he is the editor invoking them. Cheers, --17:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Dailycare (talk)

Why are the pics only focusing on woman?

I don't want this page turning into some kind of porn site, but filling the content with two large pics of woman with similar anatomy isn't exactly showing extensive coverage of the subject (or rather uncoverage, if you know what I mean...), so how about just showing one picture of each and just leaving it at that? Robo37 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Systemic bias?

When I think of exhibitionism the image conjured, at least in my mind, is the stereotypical guy in a trenchcoat. But, of course, Wikipedia instead shows a young girl flashing at Mardi Gras. —Wiki Wikardo 21:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. As you can see from the discussions above, however, there are editors who feel strongly that the page should be about the colloquial use of the term instead of how it is used in behavioural science. (PS- I love your wiki name.)— James Cantor (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Me too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Image at top of page

I think the new editor removing these images has a point, and I'd at least like it discussed here first, rather than treating them like a vandal. This isn't a "censored" argument, but I find it hard to believe that this woman wants her picture on WP, and I don't think we have a right to show her because of a momentary indiscretion in a public place. If a similar picture of someone we know is OK with this can be found, I won't fight its inclusion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The picture has been on Commons for several years by the look of it. What one finds hard to believe is great societally, but the picture is a normally licenced one taken originally from http://www.flickr.com/photos/radiate2357/2242100099/ Simple removal is censorship. Discussing whether it adds value to the article is a totally different matter. Looking dispassionately at the article many pictures may be seen by some as adding value and by others as not being necessary. I have a view that consensus, potentially nem con, has kept it there hitherto. It is up to consensus to remove it, not the actions of a single editor, or even a pair of editors.

The correct approach is WP:BRD and you have, instead gone for a further reversion. That is interesting, but immaterial.

I hold the view that, in discussion I do not find that the picture adds value, but, in bold removal I do not find the action valid by either of you. If the article added value to the article I would be arguing very strongly for its retention and that removal was censorship. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop using the word "censorship" when it has nothing to do with what is being discussed. I consider this akin to a BLP issue, where I believe the operating philosophy is "keep it out until there's consensus for it". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You may believe what you wish and so may I. I say your action and that of the other editor is censorship, You say it is not. I believe your removal was incorrect technically. You believe it was not. Both of these beliefs are fine. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What would be more appropriate is not to argue that the image be removed from this article. The image is licenced correctly and is on Commons, after all. What would be more useful if you believe genuinely that this is a privacy issue for the lady concerned, is to argue on Commons for its deletion there. The image is used on multiple projects, thus I wonder if you would not consider a greater good being done by handling it in a global manner? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

To assist you I have started http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color.jpg#File:Mardi_Gras_Flashing_-_Color.jpg Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have seen Commons in action for quite some time, and have little faith in Commons doing the right thing. I'm acting on this image because (a) I believe I'm right about this, and (b) I think I have a decent shot at effecting the change I want to see. Participating in a deletion discussion at Commons would meet (a), but not (b). Although it would be rude of me to ignore your opening it, so I'll commnent there.

I may open a more general discussion at WP:BLPN to answer the more general question. If I do, I'll note it here or on your talk page. You'll note I didn't remove all of the pictures of naked people from the article, just one showing someone's easily identifiable face, in a photo that has a pretty decent likelihood of having been used here without the subject's approval, in a situation that is likely to cause a non-public figure embarrassment. I think that's a pretty low hurdle to expect an image in an Encyclopedia to meet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The woman exposed her breasts in public, and it's black letter law that taking and publishing pictures of people in public is legally permissible. That is tree whether the person is clothed or naked. The person who goes on the street has no expectation of personal privacy (that's the meaning of being in public - one is not in private), and the state of their exposure is irrelevant to that. In fact, one can make the case that the person exposing themselves on the street has less than no expectation of privacy since they are drawing attention to themselves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that it would be illegal to use that photograph. The argument is that we should use common sense, good taste and sensitivity. Should we have a photograph depicting exhibitionism? Sure. Do we need to splash a gratuitous picture of one particular identifiable woman as Wikipedia's definition of "exhibitionism" for all encyclopedic eternity? I don't think so. I think the picture currently in the article is perfect - it is a clear illustration of exhibitionism and unlike the other photo, the angle and inclusion of the crowd clearly places exhibitionism in context: it's not just "a woman flashing her breasts," it's "a woman flashing her breasts for a group of people to see." polarscribe (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note that while the wording of this template isn't perfect, I'm supposed to put something here. The thread is: WP:BLPN#Photos of private people doing embarrassing things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The argument about keeping the image that can identify a person is perfectly valid, but it ignores basic human courtesy and respect for people's privacy. Placing that image there makes the article about the girl, rather than about exhibitionism. There is no need to use images that are immediately identifiable here. WP:NOTCENSORED and all that shouldn't be excuses to be assholes when we have a perfectly valid alternative. I would consider this to be a clear BLP issue, with the usual ramifications and restrictions. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Whether the original photo (the Mardi Gras flasher) is the best image to illustrate the topic or not, it is not a BLP violation to illustrate an encyclopaedia article with a photograph taken in a public place of a subject who clearly knows they are being photographed. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. The Budapest image is not a great replacement, since it seems to show a model or actress, whose primary motivation is probably payment rather than exhibitionism. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the Budapest image isn't very illustrative of the subject. It might be hard to find one, given the BLP concerns, because one aspect of exhibitionism is that it's risky, clandestine, daring, scandalous, etc., whereas just being naked in front of people might make one a model, actor, porn star, activist, or nudist, not an exhibitionist. Is there a free image of a WP:WELLKNOWN exhibitionist? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Or someone could find a non-well-known exhibitionist willing to affirmatively grant the right to display their picture here, via an OTRS e-mail or similar communication. polarscribe (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't her face just be pixelated or something? I have to be honest, out of the exhibition gallery it is the photo that best illustrates the subject. You usually equate exhibitionism with flashing rather than just public nudity. Betty Logan (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• • • • See commons:Commons:BLP#Identification for why we don't pixelate faces. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What about this image. It's of Mark Roberts (streaker). Since we have an article about him, it would be difficult to argue that WELLKNOWN doesn't apply in relation to BLP. Formerip (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no chance we'd be embarrassing him.--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Crystal Ball?

Class IV: Exclusive Exhibitionists- "Such exhibitionists do not seem to have been reported in literature so far, but based on the theory of paraphilic equivalence, it can be predicted that these exhibitionists do exist in society and they will be reported sometime in the future."

Is Wikipedia making this prediction or is Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices making this prediction? Should it even be included?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A contradiction?

I see two pieces of information on this page and I can't get them to jibe in my head; they seem to contradict each other. First, "Only very few exhibitionists chose "Anger and disgust" (3.8%) or "Fear" (0.5%) [as a most desired response in their targets]." Second, "For the person performing the act, the point of such indecent exposure and similar indecent exposure is that[...]the shock and repulsion actually increases the flasher's sexual excitement."

Given that Freund, Watson and Rienzo cited in the first instance was specifically about sex offenders who were exhibitionists, this seems like a contradiction to me. Do indecent exposers want to shock and frighten their targets, or don't they? Is there something I'm missing here? 99.224.255.235 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the content in the Classification section is unsourced and probably wrong. I've never heard of any distinction between "flashing" and "indecent exposure", except that one term is colloquial and the other legal. I'll cull it. KateWishing (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Definition

Exhibitionism is the act of exposing in a public or semi-public context those parts of one's body that are not normally exposed – for example, the breasts, genitals or buttocks.

I agree with James Cantor in #Proposed changes and the IP in #The definition and illustrations are wrong. that this definition is not supported by any reliable sources. Exhibitionism was coined by Krafft-Ebing to refer to a sexual desire to expose oneself, and it remains defined that way both in authoritative medical sources (DSM, ICD) and popular dictionaries.

• OED: "A mental condition characterized by the compulsion to display one’s genitals in public."
• Merriam Webster: "a perversion in which sexual gratification is obtained from the indecent exposure of one's genitals (as to a stranger)"

We already have articles for the more general concepts of public nudity and indecent exposure. KateWishing (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What wording are you proposing? Since exhibitionism in common discourse does refer to the definition you cited above (the one that is currently still the lead sentence), though not that exact wording, I don't see the problem. In common discourse, the term does not usually refer to a mental disorder or any other disorder. And just like has been done with the Sexual fetishism article, the Exhibitionism article should include medical and non-medical definitions of the term. In fact, the Sexual fetishism article should be expanded further with regard to the non-medical aspect. It is easy enough to cite different definitions in the lead, like the article currently does, and have a Definitions section that expands on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose that the primary definition be changed to "the act or fantasy of exposing one's genitals for sexual reasons", in line with medical and dictionary definitions. A glance through Google Search/Books/Scholar results also suggests this is the chief use of the term, though occasionally it's used in a more general sense. We can mention that the term sometimes refers to non-sexual public nudity or just "showing off", but I think the main subject of this article should be sexual exposure, since we have other articles for non-sexual acts. KateWishing (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Where I mention exhibitionism on my user page, I'm clearly referring to the matter in a sexual sense. So I understand what you mean about the term referring to the sexual arousal/sexual gratification aspect. That stated, when I read and/or hear people use the term exhibitionism, it is usually in the ways that this Sex and Society source that is currently used in the lead reports. That source apparently mentions non-sexual and sexual exhibitionism. Either way, for the WP:Lead sentence, I go by what the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources state or show to be the most common use of the term (per WP:Due weight), unless it's a case like the Pedophilia article, where the most common use of the term very much complicates matters and should not be reported ahead of the medical definition. Whatever is the most common definition with regard to exhibitionism, I don't much care which WP:Lead sentence you choose. As long as it is not a medical definition (or a poor piece) for the lead sentence, I won't object; I don't think that the medical definition trumps popular usage in this case.

Beyond My Ken, as you know, had a problem with James Cantor's proposals. So if Beyond My Ken is fine with your proposed changes, I see no problem with you going ahead with them. Flyer22 (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2015‎ (UTC)

And by "medical definition," I don't mean the inclusion of "sexual arousal" or "sexual gratification"; I mean a lead sentence that starts out framing the topic as a mental disorder or a sexual disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposing Update On Psychological aspects

Hello everyone! I was just reading through this page and more specially through this particular section and I realized that the statistics for those who actually participate in these actions was not very defined. I was looking to make the statistics more clearly defined in both male and females sexes. Just so people have more to go on. Something more concrete, because when you put numbers or statistics to things, such as papers or documents more people are drawn to them. I wanted people know more than just the fact that males have, typically more exhibitionist behaviors than women do. This are my purposed changes: [1] (Yazzz1993 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC))

I modified your comment above to make it easier to see your changes. Please add the page number for the Nolen-Hoeksema reference. Also, per MOS:HEAD, the section heading should be capitalized as "Psychological aspects," not "Psychological Aspects". KateWishing (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for modifying my comment! The page number for the Nolen-Hoeksema reference is pg.384. (Yazzz1993 (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Exhibitionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120094326/http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/Blackledge/excerpt.html to http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/Blackledge/excerpt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS:IM

User:Beyond My Ken, you have been told multiple times (at least 1, 2) that images belong in the section that refers to them (MOS:IM), not above it; and that reverting for "status quo" or "no consensus" is ownership behavior, meaning it is a bad revert reason. The "status quo" existed before you put the image in the wrong place, so picking and choosing the "status quo" as your edit (and not the edit prior to yours) is not a valid revert reason. Status quo doesn't matter, consensus matters. The consensus is MOS:IM. If you dispute the consensus the onus to reach a new consensus is on you. Your, uh, "novel" ideas about where images and cleanup tags belong have been repeatedly rejected on Wikipedia for a decade, it's time to let go of the stick. Bright☀ 07:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge streaking into exhibitionism. Streaking is a subset of exhibitionism., Both articles are of a reasonable size, so the proposed merger will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. SunCrow (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I have completed the merge. SunCrow (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert merge of Obscene phone call to here

SunCrow, I just saw this merge. Obscene phone call doesn't belong here; it is not the same topic. You should revert the merge. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

And an author having questioned if it [telephone scatologia] is a form of exhibitionism does not make it one.

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, you merged the entire topic of obscene phone call here and have treated it as if it is all about telephone scatologia. No. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, some professionals do speak of overlap between exhibitionism and telephone scatologia or consider telephone scatologia a form of exhibitionism (known as verbal exhibitionism), but it's more common for telephone scatologia to be referred to alongside exhibitionism rather than automatically being exhibitionism. And not all obscene phone calling is telephone scatologia. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Does not mention that it is a mental disorder and its relation to psychiatric problems

The article does not mention the diagnostic and therapeutic approach as a mental disease (Reference: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/conditions/exhibitionism ) It is also strongly related to psychiatric comorbidity (Refernece: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16420072/ ) 84.205.241.2 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Well, that's because it's not a mental disorder. It's a behavior.

This behavior is sometimes a symptom of a mental disorder, but quite often is engaged in by those with no diagnosed disorder. Examples of this mentally healthy behavior can be seen on the page, in 5 of the 6 images and in the only video. Also, the page does, in fact, cover this; see §Psychological aspects. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect caption

The photo of the man streaking at the 2006 Harvard-Yale football game has an incorrect caption. Harvard Stadium is not located in Cambridge, it is located in the Allston neighborhood of Boston. I would fix this, but I'm not sure if I should change Cambridge to Allston or to Boston. Bunkyray5 (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Streaking etymology - Maryland story is provably false

The two sources cited mention nothing about any such news report, but do mention that the University of Maryland's attempted record happened in 1974, not 1973. The word "streaking" was already being used by Time, Newsweek, and others before the Maryland attempt, making this origin story clearly apocryphal. I propose removing the entire paragraph. Xscapist (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Unmerge "Streaking" from "Exhibitionism"?

I'm not sure why "streaking" was singled out for merging and not any other pages listed under "Types of Exhibitionism" that have much shorter pages, if just for consistency sake. However, since merging additional pages would take more work than unmerging the one, I propose undoing the merge of "streaking." Xscapist (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"Lady Godiva syndrome" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Lady Godiva syndrome has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 18 § Lady Godiva syndrome until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"Roshutsu" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Roshutsu has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Roshutsu until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Sexy flash" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sexy flash has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 25 § Sexy flash until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)