Jump to content

Talk:List of paraphilias/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Inclusion of common names

To split this out of the above discussion about formatting...

So far the only objections to inclusion of common names seem to be:

  1. including a reliable source to avoid WP:OR
  2. ensuring the terms are not taken as definitional of, or 1:1 correspondents of, the formal paraphilias that the article primarily lists

Would e.g. Dan Savage count as a reliable source? Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 05:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

DSM codes and history

Thanks to editors who added homosexuality and DSM codes. I believe both are helpful to readers of this list, and I had an earlier discussion with James Cantor where he also resisted these additions. Jokestress (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I propose adding the applicable DSM codes as a column:

302.9 would be the default for all except the specified ones. The homosexuality note could go under that listing (however we end up handling it). Jokestress (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add those codes (I think most have them already). I suggest you add them to the DSM Codes article too, as that's what we're using as a source. Paraphilia NOS should not be listed in the column though, as that would indicate that those paraphilias are somehow "officially sanctioned" in particular (which they aren't; it's a generic, unspecified category). The note at the top of the list is sufficient IMO.
IMO the historical homosexuality coding note is encyclopedically useful and should go together with its current listing, though that veers into full article territory. Anything that's excessively articulate (ha) should go on the DSM#Sexual orientation section, already linked.
I'm not so sure about the "current" homosexuality coding, however - "Sexual Orientation Disturbance", TTBOMK, does not mean homosexuality in the usual sense, but only an acute problem with one's sexual orientation. (One could also have a problem with one's heterosexual orientation...) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 11:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

List of sexual fetishes

I really think list of sexual fetishes should be somewhere on wikipedia, there are quite many articles with names ending "fetishism". Should I add a list to this article, should I create a new article or should I do nothing at all? If I remember right, sexual fetishes were included in List of paraphilias some time ago. Tiredtime (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any reason to oppose such a list, but I have trouble imagining how such a list would avoid being merely a list of potential fetish objects or wind up merely being a subset of the paraphilias already listed here. Many paraphilias have multiple names, such as "transvestism" and "tranvestitic fetishism." I don't know what stands to be gained by making a separate list just for those who have the word "fetish" somewhere in the name. I think WP would be better served simply by added the synonyms (or missing fetishes) to the list of paraphilias page, but as I said, I certainly have no opposition to creating a separate list of fetishes. (I do not think it appropriate, however, to remove the fetishes from the paraphilias list.)
Happy editing, in case you decide to go ahead.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Why does the link to 'autoandrophilia' merely take us to 'autogynephilia'? Given the controversy about this issue, such a minor error could be (mis?)interpreted in a poor light. The problem is, I know of no good sources, and this is not a commonly accepted term. Zoe Brain (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance, but what is the difference between sexual fetishes and paraphilias? Meiskam (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Technically, 'paraphilia' is the more general term, including desires related to objects, people, actions, situations, etc., while 'fetish' includes only attractions to objects. In practice, 'fetish' is more loosely used and often applied to kinks, which wouldn't be diagnosed as conditions. Additionally, fetishes are more consistently sexual in expression. BitterGrey (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hirsutophilia

Paraphilia involving sexual attraction to body hair. Should this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.233.143 (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a rule about which interests should or should not be included on the list. However, the hirsutophilia article could use some expansion. Alternatively, the one-sentence definition could be moved over to wiktionary, were it would be ideal. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BitterGrey (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
IMO the rule is, approximately, that it belongs in the paraphilia list iff there is a primary scientific psychology source that lists it as such (e.g. the DSM). Any other things that are arguably paraphilias, but unsourced as such, should be separately listed (under 'non-paraphilic sexual interests') iff there is verifiable source that they do indeed exist as a practice, and not listed at all if there is not such a source. Basically, list everything that really exists (or for which there is enough misinformation to deserve a debunking article, a la 'donkey punch'), but only list as 'paraphilia' that which the psychological community has judged to come under that (formal, diagnostic) term. So in this case, I would list 'hirsutophilia' under 'non-paraphilic sexual interests' iff someone can provide a WP:RS. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a name for the following paraphilias?

  • Attraction to completely hairless bodies.
  • Attraction to people with incredibly long thick heads of hair.
  • Attraction to homosexuals of the opposite gender.
  • Hand fetish.
  • Attraction to weak, scrawny, effeminate looking men.
  • Attraction to agressive women who act like wild animals (growling, sratching, biting, tongue bathing).
  • Extreme attraction to eyebrows/eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Try the reference desk, if there was a name for it and any research, it'd probably be in the table already. The other option would be to check the second reference, it contains more than 500 specific paraphilias. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual excluded but sinophile included?

Apparently attraction to someone of the same sex (which basically prevents biological reproduction) is not a paraphilia, but a sinophilia ("person who demonstrates a strong interest in aspects of Chinese culture" according to sinophile) is a paraphila.

Is this a joke? I completely fail to understand the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of an item in this list. The LMOE (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think that, like anglophile, it shouldn't be on this list. (My reference to desiring unusually tall Asians on the paraphilia talk page was to point out a difference between the self-promoted and established definitions of paraphilia. [1])
By the way, homosexuality is a bad example, since it was a political decision made by psychiatrists. Whether the wrong decision was to include homosexuality previously or to exclude it now is a debate I don't wish to get involved with.BitterGrey (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Reworking table

I'm planning on reworking the table, here's my work to date. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Progressive edits are usually preferred. In the above, are there changes that you are proposing in addition to the removal of the references column? I'm assuming that the conversion above is incomplete. BitterGrey (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You can't really progressively edit a table in mainspace but I've no problem with getting input on the final product here before moving to mainspace. I don't see the changes as substantive, I'm integrating the reference column with the source of arousal as a footnote. The reference column was essentially just empty but for footnotes, and I couldn't see a reason not to just append them to the end of the source of arousal. I've also retitled the middle column and I'm integrating citation templates. Also dug up what weblinks I could for the sources. Other minor changes include wording of the source of arousal and removing redlinks. This is also helping me update {{paraphilia}} as there are several listed here that aren't listed there. This version would also later allow the addition of extra information, such as incidence, prevalence, and other minor tidbits. We could even work in homosexuality as a noted entry. My first reason to edit was because the lines between columns make for better reading.
It might be an idea to include ICD-10 codes as well, if we can track them down, and anything with the DSM as a source should have one as well. I've removed and combined a couple that were duplicates or poorly sourced (Teratophilia and robot fetishism being the ones that springs to mind - they're sourced to webpages rather than medical sources required by WP:MEDRS; no objection to including if journal articles can be found). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Moved to main article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Autopedophilia?

How does that even happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.127.152.35 (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question, the description in this article is unsatisfactory. I'm removing it and posting it here for consideration.
Autopedophilia -- Being prepubescent
Lawrence, AA (2006). "Clinical and theoretical parallels between desire for limb amputation and gender identity disorder". Archives of Sexual Behavior 35: 263-278. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9026-6. PMID 16799838
If someone has access to the journal article or has another source that explains this, it can be re-added. But the way it was listed does not describe a paraphilia as defined in the article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Erythrotrichophilia

Does this one exist? I've seen it here[2] (Ainslie McIntyre's comment, September 15, 2009, 16:26:40).--Follgramm3006 (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Could an "erythrotrichophilist" be "Somebody who sexually desires policewomen"?--Follgramm3006 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there could also be "Ebonotrichophilist" or "Negritrichophilist" ad nauseam... and you have to remove the pipe at the end of that link to show your viewers the picture of the red-haired policewoman... right now, it's busted. Seduisant (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Good question. What's the name for the "sexual desire for policewomen"?--80.58.205.56 (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

fartophilia

suggest merging Flatulophilia here --Arkelweis (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I instead suggest Flatulophilia for an AfD.— James Cantor (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
One or the other, there are no sources on which to base an actual article, the article seems mainly intended to add links. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is infantophilia a neologism and/or misnomer?

"Infantophilia" conjures up images of the sexual molestation of newborns. While I would imagine radio shock jocks and reactionary bloggers embracing this term quickly, Google scholar lists only 27 uses, contrasted with pedophilia's 17,000. Based on this, it clearly is a neologism. This suggests that it should be left off the list, much like nepiophilia( 6). Perhaps the lack of adoption is due to its lack of clarity. Infant "is typically applied to children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months." The term in question here was intended to refer to preschoolers as well, over one-third of the age range covered by the term pedophilia, not just to infants.

Input would be appreciated from editors who are not associated with those who coined this term. BitterGrey (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe whoever put it in meant infantilism, which is quite different. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The source indicates it is a newly proposed term. For now, I added a note that it's not in general use. I would concur with removing it from the list unless more sources are found. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, seems like a fairly helpful distinction to me but I can see your point on not being widely used. But I am definitely not an expert on this. On a unrelated note I've deleted Voyeurism as it was the same as Scoptophilia Mhairiiscool (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The term voyeurism is overwhelmingly more common across the RS's than is the term scoptophilia.— James Cantor (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, Voyeurism is the better term for the list - it's also the name of the relevant Wikipedia article. When I checked, both terms were listed, so I removed the Scoptophilia and moved the second reference to Voyeurism. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely this is a paraphilia, but I don't know what the real name for it might be. If someone claiming to know the proper term for it can support that claim with citations, could this paraphilia please be added to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.53.97.25 (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition

I think that Cantor's definition used in the article (which seems very new -- 2009) fails to exclude attraction to, say, vibrators or sex dolls, which are among the things specifically excluded in the DSM (because they are meant to be attractive). Perhaps some caveat needs to be added. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I thought some more about this, and I propose we remove the definition, and simply replace it with "widely accepted or proposed in the current literature in the field". First, let me explain why Cantor's (& Blanchard's) definition is no better than any other that has been attempted. The prototypical definition of paraphilia, (e.g. [3] but there are a bazillion variations) defines it as deviation from a "normal" sex. And of course, there's no universally accepted definition for what "normal" (more correctly called normative) sexuality is, which entails no universally accepted definition of a paraphilia. You don't have to take (just) my word for this trivial analysis. There are sources [4] saying that, which I'm going to use in the paraphilia article proper.
  • Now, Cantor's definition tries to achieve a few practical objectives:
    • It attempts excludes homosexuality between adults from paraphilias (on a theoretical argument, I mean). But this hinges on the unstated definition of [pre]copulatory behavior. On Wikipedia at least, copulation is defined to commonly mean only insertion of male organ in the female one. Cantor's def omits the word "normal" (or variations thereof), but this is certainly implied as an adjective in front of [pre]copulatory behavior. Without the unstated but implied "normal" adjective, can you answer the question: Is spanking a precopulatory behavior? To some it obviously is, because they have sex afterward! So, those guys have no ascertainable paraphilia, not even for research purposes. The same logic applies to exclude as paraphilias almost everything else in couples that copulate, except for age issues, and the "phenotypically normal" clause.
    • The assumption that copulation, rather that [mutual] orgasm, is the goal in sex is just funny in the 21st century. If Alice has a hard time with vaginal orgasms, and always uses an external vibrator, e.g. the fabled Hitachi Magic Wand, and she's also a lesbian, she's probably not going to deal with copulation ever; she sticks with "outercourse". In this respect, Cantor's definition is inferior to ones are less precise. Most people in the Western world (Arkansas excluded) would assume that using a vibrator like that is "normal". Of course, you can argue that this is [pre]copulatory behavior etc., but there's no objective standard for defining the central pillar of Cantor's definition, so you're back to square one.
    • On the other hand, this definition automatically defines sex with non-adults as a paraphilia. It doesn't even offer an exception if both are non-adults! Again, a vague definition relying on "normal" is superior in this respect too. (Left to their own devices, adolescents usually have sex with each other, despite what some might think.) The goal here seem to be to include hebephilia in the list, a well-known view of the CAMH group, but still controversial outside (at least judging by the unusual number of letters to the editor about that proposal, and I've certainly not included all of them). Of course, the word "adult" is itself rather vague: social adulthood or biological adulthood?
    • Similarly, if Joe likes fat women, midgets or female bodybuilders, then he has a paraphilia. What if he is a midget himself, or fat, or a huge steroid-loaded hulk himself? Does he have to like only phenotypically normal partners then?
  • So, this definition fits the program of the CAMH research group, but it's too early to say it's generally accepted (was published in 2009---as I already pointed out above), and my common sense WP:OR says that's not superior to vague ones, and there are sources saying you can't give good one anyway. Coming back to something constructive, the "widely accepted in the current literature in the field" certainly excludes homosexuality, but may not include hebephilia (not yet, anyway). I've read in some paper (forgot which) that in practice, sexual offenders against minors that don't qualify for pedophilia get a "paraphilia NOS (hebephilia)" diagnosis for practical reasons. So, "used in clinical practice" might also be a good discriminant. Now, adding just "proposed" is iffy, because one can fill the list with totally obscure stuff from random papers, as long as they are recent enough. We may need to hammer out a standard for "proposed", but I don't see editors adding deluges of stuff here on a daily basis, so maybe we can defer that work until it's actually needed. The current definition doesn't really prevent people from adding this kind of entries either.

Thanks for reading, Tijfo098 (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are countless, more established definitions available. However, to avoid discussion about how to define paraphilia in a location other than the paraphilia article, could we agree that the definition here should be a brief summary of the definition there? BitterGrey (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if hebephilia should be included on this list, since it has not officially been deemed a paraphilia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

To avoid a plurality of discussion locations regarding the definition of paraphilia, I synchronized the lead definition with the one present in the paraphilia article. BitterGrey (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"danger wank"

Somebody adds this as common synonym for Erotic asphyxiation, but that article doesn't mention this synonym, and my understanding is that it means something else (masturbating while being at risk of getting caught doing it). In any case, less well known terms require a citation. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The list -- Do a few of these truly belong on it?

Are some of these actually paraphilias, as in "not normative stimulation"? When I see things like breasts and buttocks listed, I do a double take (though I added the source for buttocks, taken from the Buttocks fetishism article since these entries should be sourced). I mean, how is attraction to breasts or buttocks not normative sexual stimuli? Plenty of normal people are attracted to these body parts, which is why breast implants are so popular. These attributes are even portrayed as normal sexual stimuli. The Buttocks, Buttocks fetishism, and Breast articles make that clear. Perhaps these attractions are more so sexual fetishes, which may or may not be paraphilias for some people, like podophilia (attraction to feet)? If by "paraphilia," we mean "sexual preference for otherwise non-sexual objects," then maybe we should make that clearer in the lead (disregarding the fact these body parts are also sexual objects to some)? I know why BitterGrey changed the opening of the lead, as shown above, but the "not part of normative stimulation" part really stands out to me as "off" for a few of these listings. It seems we need some sort of balance in the lead, to where it is clearer that some of these may not necessarily be viewed as paraphilias. The second paragraph seemingly tries to touch on this, but I see it as simply calling them "paraphilias that haven't been recognized as paraphilias because they are harmless." Flyer22 (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one debating this. The lead of the Breast fetishism article, backed up by reliable sources (though that article as a whole needs a lot of work), states, "Debate exists on whether the modern widespread sexual attraction to breasts among heterosexual males of western society constitutes a sexual fetish.[1] In clinical literature of the 19th century, the focus on breasts was considered a form of paraphillia, but in modern times this interest is considered normal." Maybe adding this part to the description for the Breasts listing will help a little? I still feel something needs to be done with the lead to address these types of "fetishes" or "paraphilias" that are considered normal sexual attraction. Flyer22 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No, some of these things do not belong on the list! Will someone do something about the IP address 188.164.9.64 adding this crap to the list? While a lot of them are paraphilias, some of them are not. His edits, for example, include:

  • Arousal from fantasizing about someone other than one’s partner
  • Arousal from partners of other nations or races
  • Attraction to partners of another age group
  • Sex in a parked car
  • Attraction to a person because of a difference in height
  • Oral stimulation of the anus
  • Anal sex
  • Anal sex with a female partner

Huh???? How are these "not normal"? The intro of this article says that a paraphilia is "a biomedical term used to describe sexual arousal to objects, situations, or individuals that are not part of normative stimulation and that may cause distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her. A paraphilia involves sexual arousal and gratification towards sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme." Well, I must say there IS NOTHING ATYPICAL AND EXTREME about the examples I listed above. The only way "Attraction to partners of another age group" is "not normal and extreme" is if we are talking about pedophilia or young people attracted to the elderly. And it's hard to believe that "Arousal from partners of other nations or races" and "Attraction to a person because of a difference in height" are on the list but not homosexuality. If homosexuality is normal, then so are the above. Speaking of homosexuality, it might as well be on this list if anal sex is included. I know that not all gay men engage in anal sex, but there are a lot who do.

IP's 188.164.9.64's list is either outdated or doesn't know what it's talking about with some of its listings. So can we please use high-quality sources when sourcing this list and not any and every ole crime book or whatever? If we are going to list perfectly normal sexual behaviors on this list, then the intro needs to be changed away from "not part of normative stimulation." 187.85.160.3 (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I have my doubts about that source, first of all. I have not been able to find a single review of it, or even a decent citation (look at this). Also, consider Anil Aggrawal, a pretty puffy article--certainly this list aids in exposure. Finally, it's not unreasonable to ask that individual paraphilias be notable and included--not because I hate redlinks or we should avoid them, but because, well, we may well have listcruft here. Seriously--licking lizards? I also agree with many of the contentual comments made above. In short, the IP's edits should be undone, as far as I'm concerned, and the source discredited until we have some proof of its academic standing. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I started cleanup, but it's kind of tedious. I am removing redlinks sourced only to Aggrawal. Note, for instance, that it contained "androsodomy", getting off on having anal sex with a partner of the same sex. If that's not "normative" then we are back to the days before Freud. And, for crying out loud, look at the last one, "Zwischenstufe". Pardon my French, but that's merde de taureau. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, androsodomy was anal sex with a male partner. There's a separate term for a female partner, and that's also about to go. What is normal in the eyes of Dr. Aggrawal? Vaginal, missionary, preferably in the dark? Is one allowed to utter a dirty word while engaged? Drmies (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • For shits and giggles: "Aphephilia - Deriving pleasure from being touched". Drmies (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
What a mess those additions were. Thank you for the cleanup, Drmies. I certainly agree that only high-quality sources should be used for this list. I might go as far as to say that if it's not in the current DSM, it shouldn't be on here. I see that the attraction to same-sex partners was even actually on the list. Yikes! This source should be removed completely. A complete revert is perfectly justified, in my opinion. Using that source for some entries but not for others is not the way to go. The problem might also be the definition of "paraphilia" in the lead, which is what I originally suggested when starting this section. It was changed from "is defined as powerful and persistent sexual interest other than in copulatory or precopulatory behavior with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners" to what it currently says. The previous lead seems more accurate if we are going to list sexual behaviors that are widely considered normal in this day and age. Alternatively, there could be a partial combination of both definitions. So that it doesn't seem odd when the list includes normative sexual stimulation that is not penis-vagina sex. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, by all means, go for the mass revert. I note that you, me, and the IP (above), that makes three, and no one is protesting (except for the IP who added it, in an edit summary). As for that definition, BitterGrey (section above) changed it but also remarked on what they perceived as a need for change. I personally have no real strong preference one way or the other, though I think that yours was better phrased; besides, I am inclined to not let the DSM have the final word on everything. BTW, my selective edits were roughly rationalized as follows: if it was sourced to Aggrawal but a blue link, I let it stand, unless it was total nonsense (touching, kissing, etc.) and the associated article didn't define it as deviant. If it was sourced to Aggrawal and a redlink, it was out. If it had a second reference to Aggrawal, I removed that one (overlinking). You see, with edits to monstrous articles one is easily accused of vandalism, hence the piecemeal approach, which is of course a drag. So I tried to be on the careful side--but as you can see from the history, the longer it took, the more ridiculous I found it. So please go ahead and rv to the version you pointed at above--before the definition change. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to take a bucket full of vomit to the vampires (some young, some old) I left in the parked car, and then touch someone and maybe even kiss them. Sue me if you can. --Drmies (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I restored the article away from Aggrawal. Yes, I knew the reasoning behind the way you edited the information. I'm just saying that if we use the Aggrawal source for anything he perceives as a paraphilia, a case can be made that we must also use the Aggrawal source for the other things he perceives as a paraphilia. We aren't allowed to cherry pick a source that way. And about the DSM, I get your point about not having the DSM have the last word. But in cases like this one (the Aggrawal case), it is clear that we cannot just allow any source's assertion into this article...WP:Reliable source or not. The Aggrawal source may pass Wikipedia's standard on reliable sources, but it clearly is not reliable (per the concerns expressed above). It's beyond idiotic that he would include touching. Say what? I'm not understanding this source at all. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
In my defense: it's not Aggrawal that moved me to leave some of them in there--it's the bluelinked quality. After all, this is also a list, and different opinions on lists are current here: one of them is (for instance in lists of "Notable inhabitants") that inclusion should be based on the sourcing in the bluelinked article. Of course, many of those bluelinked articles are unverified one- or two-sentenced stubs. But I have no problem with a grand reversal.

Yes, it's odd--it was published by a real outfit, not Lulu or something like that. Just goes to show you--they don't always get it right either. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my experience has been that Aggrawal published a very broad list, but mutliple vandals on this page have still nonsense and just added Aggrawal as a ref, imiating other entries. I haven't checked whether Aggrawal actually made every statement attributed to him, but I suspect its worth checking.— James Cantor (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Drmies, yes, I saw that you were removing things based on whether or not a listing was a bluelink, just as much as whether or not it was pure silliness. No worries there.
Thanks for your input, James. I was hoping you would weigh in. I don't want you to become annoyed by me asking you to weigh in on things, so I decided to pass on that this time. My concern, of course, is Aggrawal's "very broad list." I mean, if he lists any of the above silliness, then how can we take him seriously? Are any of those things actually considered paraphilias by experts? And if so, how can things that are largely considered normative sexual stimulation (such as arousal from fantasizing about someone other than one’s partner, arousal from partners of other nations or races, oral sex, anal sex) be considered paraphilias? Is it because paraphilia is not only about listing attractions that are not normal...but also about listing attractions that are non-copulatory or do not intend to be (as in sexual attraction to non-reproductive organs or some other feature of a person that has nothing to do with the sexual organs)? And if that's the case (which it seems to be, since even attraction to breasts and buttocks are on the list), shouldn't the lead be tweaked in some way I suggested above? It's very odd to have the main definition in the lead regulated to attraction that is "not normal"...but then have this list include attractions that are largely considered normal. Flyer22 (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Weird or Wonderful Paraphila?

The amount or fetishism videos on the Internet is rapidly increasing and the "Flatulophilia" (fart fetish) page was deleted and I added some further knowledge about such but I wasn't the original creator and for some reason people don't like me blogging as everytime I do, people like block me and delete or ignore my valid discusssion. I have Autism but I know a lot about stuff. I added to this Article about Stuff then someone deleted it. There is truly such paraphilia! I have a fart fetish aswell even and people were often put off by it and won't even forgive easily me even though I know how to control such nowadays having come off Antipsychotics. Besides there are LOADS of fart porn video clips on the Internet!! I have also added about Smoking fetishism (I don't have it) because I discovered a lot of people on sites like YouTube being turned on by women of my type and in the most popular fashion for high school ones smoking (by the comments). Autisexp235 (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

First, read the Overview section of the Sexual fetishism article. Not all fetishes are paraphilias. Second, while the main one you are describing certainly sounds like a paraphilia, and even the second one, if people are turned on by it, you need to source any information you add to this list. See WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability. Third, not sourcing your additions is why you keep getting reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The page number of the DSM, both in the hyperlink and in the display text, should be corrected to page 572. Diapers are not mentioned on pages 566-70. A preview of the section can be found by searching for "diapers" on google books [5]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. WLU just removed the citation of the DSM that applies to infantilism[6], and now he is requesting the the page number of the remaining collective citation be changed to ONLY the one page that applies to infantilism? This would affect 15 places where DSM is still cited on this page. This change would only make sense if part of some disruptive plan to render the DSM reference meaningless, and then remove them, as part of some broad anti-DSM campaign. Of course that stunt would only work if we were all too dumb to ask one question:
WLU, Why? BitterGrey (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Oops, wrong page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
To take a step back, does this edit request apply to this page, or to diaper_fetishism, the second of three pages affected by WLU's campaign, which is NOT protected? BitterGrey (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Had diaper fetishism been protected, it would have applied there. Since it's not, this section is moot. I mis-remembered which page was protected and then corrected myself. I therefore consider this section resolved and not really worth discussing further. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

So to summarize for all those who aren't watching the play-by-play, WLU confused one page affected by his anti-DSM campaign with this one. The net result of his change is a diaper fetishism article that cites the DSM's masochism section (pg 572), but neither the fetishism section (pg 569) nor any of the general paraphilia sections. WLU has removed the previous citations, which included the diaper fetish and general sections[7].
Again, Why? BitterGrey (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop referring to it as a campaign, since that has the implication of a personal vendetta against you or paraphilic infantilists. Your ongoing claims that I'm doing this simply to annoy you is both insulting to me and my history as an editor, and drives off other contributors. I have consistently cited policy, guideline and source to justify my edits, please restrain your comments to the same.
Consensus at the RSN was clearly in accordance with my interpretation. The DSM does not discuss infantilism or diaper wearing beyond one mention as a behaviour in masochism. In three pages, the same inappropriate use of the DSM occurred, so I corrected all three. I'm not sure how you could be confused by this. I can keep repeating it if you'd like but you're going to get the same answer every time. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the discussion at RSN related only to infantilism (defined as part of masochism, sect. 302.83, pg 572), not fetishism (sect. 302.81, pg 569). The edit being discussed here affected only the diaper fetish article, leaving it with only a reference to the section you claim doesn't define infantilism[8]. Had you removed a the DSM reference relating to infantilism and left the DSM refs to fetishism and the general paraphilias pages, that might have made sense. Instead, you did the exact opposite. You removed the references to the DSM sections on fetishism and general paraphilias from the article, and left only a reference to the page you are asserting doesn't define infantilism.
As for "campaign", this started in February[9] and includes so many pages that you can't keep track of them. Wikipedia has other words for this kind of behavior. BitterGrey (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The DSM discusses infantilism and diaper-wearing only once, in the same paragraph of masochism. It's almost entirely irrelevant to both. Fetishism doesn't discuss infantilism or diaper wearing and it's even more irrelevant for the same reasons.
If you have a genuine problem with my behaviour, state it clearly and plainly in a venue where the community can judge. You can request a comment on users, feel free to use that venue if you'd like.
Regarding the "campaign", can you name a single policy or guideline that it "broke"? Wikipedians are bound by the policies and guidelines and nothing else, so if you think I have genuinely done something contrary to them, then you will need to name it. I've cited the relevant policies and guidelines in my justifications, you are merely claiming I'm engaging in a personal vendetta. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You might wish to review one of the pages you just removed. In the section on differential diagnoses, it states "Cross-dressing, which is present in Transvestic Fetishism, may also be present in Sexual Masochism."(DSM 4TR 569). The involvement of a dress doesn't necessitate transvestism. Similarly, the presence of a diaper doesn't necessitate masochism. BitterGrey (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sneeze fetish

A sneeze fetish is a pharaphanlia, in which a person is sexual asouse by seeing, and hearing people sneeze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plcwill2011 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources. They should be used for any addition being added to this list. High-quality sources, more specifically. Not popular-culture news sources, etc. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DSM definition of paraphilic infantilism and fetishism

For those without a copy of the DSM handy, it clearly defines paraphilic infantilism: "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism')." This definition has been cited in the list of paraphilias article for as long as there has been a list of paraphilias article[10].

The current edit conflict is a spillover from one WLU started elsewhere, where he thought it was necessary to game 3RR ([11][12][13][14] - 28 hours) to avoid waiting for a third opinion. To try to derail the third opinion request, he replaced it, claiming that this was strictly a formatting issue[15].) It clearly is not. BitterGrey (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

One interesting note. Money's 1984 paper defining his set of terms (sometimes called Moneyisms, "Paraphilias: Phenomenology and Classification" in Am j of psychotherapy, Vol XXXVIII No 2) gives a one word definition for autonepiophilia, "diaperism" (pg 167). Pg 171 mentions it among the fetish paraphilias: "A diaper fetish (autonepiophilia) has a similar early origin." In 1984, he grouped it in the category "fetish paraphilias". In the 1988 book cited, pg 259 offers a slightly different definition. "autonepiophilia: a paraphilia of the stigmatic/eligibilic type... Autonepiophilia may be adjunctive to masochistic discipline and humiliation." However, it still seems to be listed among the "fetishistic and talismanic phylisms" (pg 96).
Money's change between 1984 and 1988 might have been in deference to the DSM IIIR definition of paraphilic infantilism, published in 1987.BitterGrey (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The DSM's discussion is clearly a description of a behaviour within the context of masochism. That single sentence does not define paraphilic infantilism. This was discussed on the RSN and several other accounts have disagreed with you (here, FiachraByrne, James Cantor, FuFoFuEd, me). The DSM should not be cited, other sources including Money's are appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
WLU, minutes before your forum shopping to try to trump the third opinion request, you wrote "The DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism, period. All references to it should be removed. I've got pages 568-573, I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear." Why should the folks here believe you over what they can see with their own eyes? It is quite clearly there in black and white, page 572 in 4TR. It has been there (although at a different page number) since IIIR. BitterGrey (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU has also edited another article to assert that the DSM doesn't mention fetishism either[16]. Edit desc "DSM does not cite anything except the appearance as part of masochism". It too is there in black and white, pages 569-570. BitterGrey (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That page is where the discussion of infantilism in the context of masochism, which FiachraByrne, James Cantor, FuFoFuEd and myself agreed did not apply to paraphilic infantilism. Yes, the word infantilism appears, but only as a behaviour in the context of masochism. This is the point made repeatedly to you, so please accept it and move on. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
WLU, if others are willing to support you in your anti-DSM campaign (which now extends to fetishism, not even discussed at RSN and with its own section in the DSM), why do you feel that you personally need to make the edit? Why not wait a little while and let someone else do it? You are now at 3RR[17][18][19] for the second time in this campaign. BitterGrey (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we are both edit warring and I realize this. We're both at or close to 3RR, making your warning more than a little hypocritical. The difference is, my edits are supported by policies and guidelines, as well as sources. Wearing diapers, like infantilism, is discussed in the DSM as a behaviour of masochists rather than as a separate issue. The DSM does not discuss medical need, it discusses being forced to wear diapers as part of a sexual attraction to humiliation. This has been pointed out to you as an inappropriate citation of the DSM on the RSN, can you explain to me why it should remain? Within masochism, the sexual attraction is to humiliation, not the diaper itself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Bittergrey (talk · contribs) has quoted accurately from the DSM but it is used here in a way that I think is misrepresentative. The quote is taken from the entry on Sexual Masochism which is given the DSM code 302.83. The DSM entry begins: The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer. The DSM then contains an illustrative list of a series of fantasies, and solitary and participatory behaviours and forms that are seen as typical of Sexual Masochism. These are tying oneself up; sticking oneself with pins; self-mutilation and electrically shocking oneself (all solitary); physical bondage; blindfolding; paddling; spanking; whipping; beating; cutting; infibulation; humiliation; being urinated or defecated on; verbal abuse; being made to behave like a dog; forced cross-dressing; and hypoxyphelia (with a partner generally). As a further example of masochism it then states that: The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism"). It would seem, therefore, that the DSM would support the inclusion of "infantilism" as an example of Masochistic behaviour rather than as a distinct paraphilia or as Paraphilia not otherwise specified (302.9) ). If the DSM's mention of infantilism were to be recorded on the list of paraphilias then it should be entered, as with the DSM, as an example of Masochistic behaviour and not as a distinct paraphilia. There are other good sources, some of which are sourced in the entry for infantilism in the list of paraphilias, that treat infantilism as a distinct paraphilia, but the DSM is not one of them.FiachraByrne (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This just keeps getting better. This started out being "about formatting"." Then it moved on to denying that the one page section on fetishism mentioned fetishism[20]. Now there is a bewildering edit request affecting the entire paraphilia section[21]. (That section does, I assure you, mention paraphilias.) BitterGrey (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with FiachraByrne. I don't think the DSM should be used to define paraphilic infantilism as a type of paraphilia NOS and consider the current sources adequate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the source someone else added back in 2008 should be restored - that is, the DSM[22] - unless you think that person wasn't sufficiently familiar with the material. BitterGrey (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Having reviewed the DSM material, I still don't think it should be replaced. It doesn't matter who adds material, what matters is if it is verified by the source. If James Cantor wishes to dispute my removal he is welcome to do so. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 05:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
So you are opting for the latter of the two positions?BitterGrey (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is the bok that is the cause of this section. http://www.fundacionmedica.org.ar/biblioteca/archivos_libros/Sexual_Crimes.pdf. DoctorHver (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Zoosadism's common name is not Bestiality

Zoosadism is sexual pleasure derived from causing or viewing an animal in pain or distress. Bestiality refers to sexual activity with an animal. The two are quite separate, and listing bestiality as the common name of Zoosadism is either a placement error or a violation of NPOV (as well as a factual error, as their definitions differ substantially). I would suggest moving the term "bestiality" to be the common name of "zoophilia" rather than "zoosadism" although this still might not be accurate, as bestiality refers to the act, whereas zoophilia refers to the underlying attraction. Nonetheless, it would be a far more accurate placement. By the way, if I made any formatting errors, please point them out. I'm new here, and would like to improve.Clawdragons (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it. The change was made several days ago, likely by a zoophile. Some use the term "bestiality" and "bestialist" to mean zoosadism, but it's generally only zoophiles who distinguish bestiality and zoophilia. And though "Some zoophiles and researchers draw a distinction between zoophilia and bestiality, using the former to describe the desire to form sexual relationships with animals, and the latter to describe the sex acts alone," like the Zoophilia article says, the terms are usually synonymous, like the Zoophilia article also says. It's why Bestiality redirects there. 72.203.168.29 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

X vs Paraphilic X?

Listing paraphilic masochism under paraphilic masochism wouldn't make sense, because most would look for it under "M", not "P". With only one exception, infantilism, the list is "X", not "Paraphilic X". Most who are looking for infantilism would look under I, not P. What are others' thoughts on moving it to "infantilism, paraphilic" or some other option that would be under "I"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittergrey (talk • contribs) 12:35, February 4, 2012

I've removed the DSM, because you know the consensus is it does not.
I've decapitalized because it's not a proper noun, see MOS:CAPS.
I would say keep it as "Paraphilic ____" but alphabetize according to the ___ but I don't care that much. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
That citation was originally added by James Cantor[23], not by me. WLU has repeated his "absolutely_unnecessary" accusations many times, neglecting that in this case, it would have involved time travel and mind control. His accusations list neglects his own campaign, including the request to remove all reference to the DSM (except for one page) from this article[24].
Had there actually been some mass consensus against the edit, why did WLU feel the need to revert me personally? Given how much effort he's dedicated to his anti-BitterGrey campaign, I guess I should be flattered. Sadly, he has yet to take the time to get his facts straight: For example, I'm not capable of either mind control or time travel, and I'm not the one who added this citation originally, no matter how much WLU would like to blame me for it. Now would someone who isn't on some anti-BitterGrey campaign (or in the gang of someone who is) care to comment? BitterGrey (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not-necessarily wrong edit cited to wrong source.

  • Malitz, 1966: "Dynamically the patient's diaper perversion appeared to symbolize a regression to infancy in order to reclaim the love of his mother..." (The author also calls it a diaper compulsion, diaper fetish, ...)
  • Pate, 2003: "The diaper fetish obviously led us to consider paraphilia as Mr. A's central diagnosis.
  • Money, "Paraphilias: Phenomenology and Classification" American Journal of Psychotherapy, April 1984: "A diaper fetish (autonepiophilia) has a similar early origin..." (p. 171)

These authors did not distinguish between diaper fetishes and infantilism. There is, however, an RS that does: The DSM lists infantilism as 302.83 (a type of masochism, pg 572-573), while fetishes are 302.81 (fetishism, of course, pg 569-570). ( And yes, WLU, there is no arguing it - the DSM does define infantilism[25][26]. ) If there is interest in separating the two, we need to cite a source that actually does separate the two.

The reason for the migration in Money's definition of autonepiophilia from diaper fetish in 1984 towards infantilism in 1986 suggests that he was aware of the new term before it was formally published in the DSM in 1987. While there is a migration, he still does not fully separate the two. "Another younger variant is infantilism, also known as diaperism and autonepiophilia. In both juvenilism and infantilism the garments have fetishistic significance." ( pg 66, Lovemaps, 1986). BitterGrey (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The DSM doesn't distinguish between diaper fetishism and infantilism [27]. Citing edits made by James Cantor in 2008 ignores this 2011 comment. Taormino's Village Voice article makes the distinction, I'll replace it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
If anyone else has is bothered by the cherrypicking going on here, feel free to say so.
I've exchanged emails with Russ and he knows what he is talking about. "He sees the Adult Babies/Diaper Lovers (AB/DL) community as made up of four specific, yet overlapping, groups: adult babies, sissy babies, diaper lovers, and s/m diaper players." Of course, even this source describes them as "overlapping." Care to try again?
Also, are you now going to move "adult baby syndrome" over to "diaper fetish", since its defining MEDRS (pate, 2003) describes it as a diaper fetish? BitterGrey (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Unless all individuals who wear diapers for sexual/erotic reasons rather than medical ones also role-play and fantisize they are infants, it is important to distinguish the two. Though the two paraphiliac groups have considerable overlap, they are not identical and the distinction between the two is a relatively easy one to make - and should be made. If a better source makes it, then it should be integrated. The distinction should be made here, the discussion of overlaps should be made in the diaper fetishism and paraphilic infantilism pages. This is merely a list. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
WLU, Are you going to move "adult baby syndrome" over to "diaper fetish", since its defining MEDRS (pate, 2003) describes it as a diaper fetish? According to the RS's provided here, that is the right category for it. If "adult baby syndrome" isn't going to be in the correct list entry, it shouldn't be on the list.BitterGrey (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Adult baby syndrome is a synonym for paraphilic infantilism, as noted in the text and sourced to Pate & Gabbard. They do not consider either synonymous with diaper fetishism. Diaper fetishism is not the same thing as paraphilic infantilism, though there are obviously infantilists who are also diaper fetishists and diaper fetishists who are also infantilists. I consider this the sort of thing for which we normally wouldn't need a reference, but the list is certainly improved by having one, even if it's just a newspaper. Using Pate & Gabbard to distinguish between paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishism seems inappropriate, though not as inappropriate as using the DSM. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

voyeurism

Can any of these which involve an act, also define someone who just watches, not necessarily does it themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.38.183 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question and I dont know the answer but there is a way to define exaclty what is being referred to precisely say voyeuristic watching without participation of fetish 'x' as "voyeuristic 'x'" and the problem of defining it at least is then solved. 122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

Homosexuality should not be on this list

In this edit, an editor added homosexuality to this list. In my opinion, though not to completely go against WP:Assume good faith, it may have been added in a way so that not much attention would be drawn to it, such as titling part of the edit summary "homophilia." Either way, this is complete nonsense. This article is titled List of paraphilias. Not List of past and present paraphilias. Even with the note that homosexuality was once thought of as a paraphilia, it doesn't belong on this list. Most researchers have declared that this attraction is normal. The very normal/common attraction to breasts is also on this list, which is ludicrous, and is why I took the time to clarify that such attraction is normal after an editor cut away that information again. Normal attractions shouldn't be on this list. And I'm contacting editors at the Homosexuality article and ones at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies about the homosexuality listing. 109.123.127.204 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to see that the breasts entry was removed. 109.123.127.204 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
"List of paraphilias" makes no specification of current status. We could break out past and current into separate parts in the same list or otherwise mark them. If we want to remove homosexuality entirely (a POV move if you ask me), we should rename the article. This is not titled List of current paraphilias, which I would support to show that the "scientific" definitions shift with social custom. According to people who think paraphilia is a legitimate concept, attraction to breasts is [[Paraphilia NOS], a type of partialism. See The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology etc. Jokestress (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
See my comment below about partialism. 109.123.87.153 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes; unfortunately, I am being WP:HOUNDed by user:Jokestress. Because I am openly gay, she re-adds homosexuality (and related terms) to this page when she dislikes something I write somewhere else. I recently created Erotic target location error, which Jokestress thinks is politically incorrect, so she promptly re-added homosexuality to this page[28] as her “See? Now, how do you like being called paraphilic???”.
Jokestress’ dismissal of other editors’ input about this, both here and at Paraphilia:
Her repeated prior attempts to evade the consensus:
— James Cantor (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. We list celestial objects formerly classified as planets at List of planets. We can list sexual interests formerly classified as paraphilias here. The only people who seem to gave an issue with it seem to have a personal stake in the matter, e.g., an activist minority in the mental health field. Jokestress (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be there, but listed as no longer considered a paraphilia. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  • 109 is right. Things that are no longer classified as paraphilias may not appear in the main list. If the consensus is to list things that were formerly classified as paraphilias, let us create a section of the article - rather than including non-paraphilias in the main list, however many additional notes they have. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It would be much clearer not to include things that are not paraphilias in the main list. If historical artifacts are included in the article, they should be kept separate, following the precedent of List of planets. One might view this as evidence that the definitions are non-scientific and shift based on social custom, or one might view it as evidence that the genuine scientific understanding of the area has been legitimately refined, but either way, it is clearer to have them separated.
Incidentally, the first reference supporting the homophilia entry (currently 34), the 1974 APA position statement, doesn't link to a 1974 APA position statement. Nor does either the link target nor the actual 1973 position APA position statement, as far as I can tell, describe homosexuality as a paraphilia.--Trystan (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
"List of paraphilias" does indeed make a specification of current status. The title says it all -- List of paraphilias. Homosexuality is no longer considered a paraphilia by most researchers. As for breasts, according to the DSM-IV-TR and as noted in the Partialism article, partialism is only categorized as a paraphilia "if it is not part of normative stimulation or causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life." I don't have much of a problem with breasts or any other normal attraction to a body part being listed as a paraphilia as long as it is made clear that the attraction(s) are now considered normal or are only considered abnormal under certain circumstances. As for Jokestress's motives for adding homosexuality, we should focus more on the content instead of the editor, but I also considered that she added homosexuality out of spite, meaning because of her conflict with Mr. James Cantor. In that first link displayed by Mr. Cantor above, Mr. Cantor also says that Paraphilia NOS are not paraphilias. Furthermore, if scientific definitions shift with social custom so much, most paraphilias that were considered paraphilias 20 years ago wouldn't still be considered paraphilias today; but that is beside the point. Jokestress says "The only people who seem to [h]ave an issue with it seem to have a personal stake in the matter." That is not true in my case. And I don't mind homosexuality being mentioned in this article, but it should be listed like it was before it was removed months ago or something similar to that. The links that Mr. Cantor displayed above show that WP:Consensus is against homosexuality being on the main list. 109.123.87.153 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
If we're listing it as a paraphilia then under WP:WEIGHT it should be countered with the mainstream scientific view, saying it is not a paraphilia but was once considered to be one for political reasons. That or the article is renamed, or possibly split into past and present in a neutral manner. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
How many such entries are there? If it's just homosexuality, it might be worth including a section discussing, briefly, with a {{main}}, that homosexuality was a paraphilia. If there are several, it might be worth including a separate section with a table, with an added column specifying when it was "removed" as a paraphilia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem with a "scientific"-looking list of an unscientific subject is that lists make it difficult to explain the politics and criticisms of the list itself. "Pedohebephilia" should be discussed here, considered by Allen Frances to be "one of the most poorly written and unworkable of the suggested criteria sets." Élisabeth Roudinesco has identified the decision by psychiatrists, in demagogic fashion, to depathologize homosexuality and embrace "paraphilia" as the moment psychiatry attempted to turn subjective concepts into objective concepts, which she calls a "disaster" that abandoned the phenomenological roots of the discipline. A list like this is reification, and there are plenty of caveats regarding the very concept of paraphilia. I propose we organize this like the aforementioned List of planets, or maybe like List of astrological traditions, types, and systems. That list splits out current and former "sciences" with a good see also section, so the true believers might be exposed to the evidence that their "scientific" belief system is a fallacy. Jokestress (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Those would seem to be questions for the individual pages. If paraphilias are identified in the scientific and/or medical literature that would seem adequate to include them in this list. Homosexuality is the most visible former paraphilia (and is probably unique given its change in status along with that visibility), it should be mentioned on this page, but should only be in the list if accompanied by a prominent statement noting that it is no longer considered a paraphilia. And given the prominence and discussion required, it might be better to have a separate section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Roscelese has made a good improvement on the page. Because I do think we should also include nonsense like pedohebephilia on this list, maybe the title of that section should be changed from "Non-paraphilic sexual interests formerly categorized as paraphilic" to "Disputed and deprecated paraphilias" or something to that effect. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I would want to make sure we did not conflate "disputed" things with things that have been officially removed. If things are "disputed" but still listed, we might put that in a separate section if the sourcing was good enough, but deprecated things should have their own section. This, however, is not my area of expertise. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The article body consists of only 3 sections. One of them is just on homophilia. If this was a bigger article, then that would be fine. However, it is better to put it back on the table but saying that it's formerly considered as such. Alternately just delete it altogether. I'm going with the first option. Acoma Magic (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that since it's not a paraphilia and the table is of paraphilias. Leave the section an appropriate size compared to the rest of the article without violating WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV. It's not a paraphilia so sticking it back in the table is problematic. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the table should have information on former and current opinions on what counts as a paraphilia. A whole subsection on homophilia is undo weight on such a small article. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I have removed it. This article contains a simple list of current paraphilias. Homosexuality should not be singled out as a paraphilia that was declassified over 40 years ago (unless we include all other declassified paraphilias during the last century). It also violates WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV. Intrepid (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
We should. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Great. When we expand the article to include a history of past paraphilias, it should be included. However, it should not be the only one listed in the article. Intrepid (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Great. An amicable solution and a resolution to the article name vs the article content problem. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 22:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Cantor must have miswrote when he stated that Paraphilia NOS are not paraphilias, or was only talking about some kinky sexual attractions that can't otherwise be categorized, because, with the exception of some aspects of partialism, all of the sexual attractions listed in that article are paraphilias. He even recently created that article, on August 12 2012. 46.165.208.13 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Current and former opinions on what counts as a paraphilia should be in the table or in a separate table

Title sums it up. If this page has become a graveyard, I'll do an RfC. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm voting for the same table, as opinion differs on what is a paraphilia. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not a matter of opinion. The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association do not classify it a paraphilia. This article defines it as "...a form of sexual arousal to objects, situations, or individuals that are not part of normative stimulation and that may cause distress or serious problems for the paraphiliac or persons associated with him or her. A paraphilia involves sexual arousal and gratification towards sexual behavior that is atypical and extreme."
As I've commented above, when we expand the article to include a history of past paraphilias, it should be included. However, it should not be the only one listed in the article. Intrepid (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
As I've said, that is problematic, as opinions differ on what to classify as a paraphilia. Therefore, current, former and divided opinions should be in the same table with a description of it. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. We can move this to List of current paraphilias to disinclude disputed and deprecated terms like homosexuality and pedohebephilia. I would support this move to show that the "scientific" definitions shift with social custom. But a list of paraphilias should include some explanation of former paraphilias the way we do with Pluto on List of planets. Jokestress (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying that we can't separate them, as it is problematic regarding what to include in "List of current paraphilias". Acoma Magic (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jokestress. We also should use those listed by the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association. This is physiological classification, not a matter of public opinion. Any questionable ones can be put into a third section. Intrepid (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The concept of paraphilia is clearly a matter of public opinion and what constitutes "normative" in any given time and culture. If we move this to list of current paraphilias, I believe we should still handle deprecated and disputed paraphilias on the same page. They are all still iatrogenic artifacts, like hystero-epilepsy and what-not. Jokestress (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Some non-American and American organisations/studies/scientists/groups would be preferable. Also, limiting it to the opinion of just three organisations isn't possible. I don't think we can drum up enough paraphilias to make three sections that also won't look odd by having just a couple in them. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
"...opinions differ on what to classify as a paraphilia. Therefore, current, former and divided opinions should be in the same table with a description of it." What reliable sources do we have stating that there is a significant difference of modern opinion as to whether homosexuality is a paraphilia? Based on the sources in the article, it is not one, and so shouldn't be included in the main list.--Trystan (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The case for and against was allegedly put forth in this recent article by James Cantor, the Wikipedia SPA who does most of the editing here: [29] However, it's not a fair or accurate summary of the arguments about why homosexuality can be defined as a paraphilia. Frankly, a gay guy is probably not the the most objective POV "expert" to conclude that his sexuality is "euphilic" (good love) but someone who preferentially dates overweight people etc. is dysphilic (bad love). It's certainly still in debate whether homosexuality is a paraphilia. Hence the recent article, flaws and all. Jokestress (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
This section I started isn't just specific to homosexuality. It's for everything that was formerly, currently, or disputably classified as a paraphilia. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Right, my response was to Trystan who asked if there is "a significant difference of modern opinion as to whether homosexuality is a paraphilia." I agree we should list all the made-up pathologies psychologists have created for human sexuality if they have been or are classified as paraphilias, per List of planets . Jokestress (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Homosexuality is the only entry in the article that is currently reliably sourced as falling under the category of "formerly classified as a paraphilia," so proposing to mix that category-of-one into the main list naturally leads to discussion of its sole member. As the sources we have all agree that it is not a paraphilia, why would we do that? List of planets includes Pluto, but in a separate section.--Trystan (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
We should also list "pedohebephilia" and "Paraphilic Coercive Disorder" (PCD) as proposed but rejected paraphilias. We should also consider moving those that are not formally classified as mental disorders, like hebephilia. Source Psychiatric Times and others. The "experts" who proposed it are all butthurt about getting shut down, but common sense prevailed in this one instance.
  • APA guidelines ignored in development of diagnostic criteria for pedohebephilia
  • Forensic Psychiatrists Vote No on Proposed Paraphilias
  • Forensic and Diagnostic Concerns Arising From the Proposed DSM-5 Criteria for Sexual Paraphilic Disorder
  • Commentary: Hebephilia—A Would-be Paraphilia Caught in the Twilight Zone Between Prepubescence and Adulthood
  • Is a diagnostic category for paraphilic coercive disorder defensible?
Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Jokestress says, "It's certainly still in debate whether homosexuality is a paraphilia." Yes, among a minority of researchers, especially those of the NARTH variety. We don't follow WP:FRINGE views or an otherwise significant minority at Wikipedia. In psychology, the majority matters most, as is the case with many majority vs. minority issues. And the majority of experts state that homosexuality is not a paraphilia. Ang again, that's not by a slight margin either. It's by a landslide.

Jokestress speaks of "fair" and "most objective" in reference to Cantor being a gay man. Well, it's also not fair and most objective to have a transwoman trying to get homosexuality listed as a paraphilia all because she has a grudge against a researcher/editor -- Cantor -- who has agreed with concluding that certain transgender aspects are mental disorders or paraphilias. If Cantor is a single-purpose account, Jokestress is just as much one...constantly following him around with the single goal to discredit any work he does (such as her constant mentioning of pedohebephilia, a proposal made by Cantor and his colleagues). She just hides her single-purpose mindset better. 46.165.208.13 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

There's a big difference and there's no reason to discredit opinions just because they come from American sources, especially since they're pretty big names involved and pretty darn reliable. If the article is going to list all paraphilias in the same table along with previous ones then i'll push for an article rename as i believe it to be impossible not to violate WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT with a single section and 1 line explanation we currently have for everything. Opinions? ツ Jenova20 (email) 22:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename the article and keep em all in the same table. Disputed paraphilias aren't covered by splitting into two articles. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Acoma Magic. That proposal feels like a POV fork. List of current paraphilias seems fine to me, as it helps show that this is a list based on definitional quicksand and social custom. However, that page should include an explanation of why we say current paraphilias, with the list of disputed and deprecated paraphilias included on the same page. Jokestress (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
It's already inappropriate, it's even more inappropriate to list it in an article named "Current" paraphilias. ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The article should not be retitled. As Trystan stated, "Homosexuality is the only entry in the article that is currently reliably sourced as falling under the category of 'formerly classified as a paraphilia'." Therefore, "List of current paraphilias" makes no sense. It begs the question, "Then where is List of past paraphilias?" There isn't one because there are no others, except for in the context of body parts associated with sex that were once thought of as clinical...but are now considered normal. Attraction to breasts and ass and other body parts associated with sex are not necessarily classified as paraphilias. The paraphilia classification for those comes with conditions. Even sexual attraction to feet -- foot fetishism -- is not necessarily a paraphilia. This is what needs to be addressed in the lead, or on the Wiki-table for each normal attraction to a body part, considering that attraction to ass, for example, is considered normal in the modern world. Basically, seeing as only two people -- Jokestress and Acoma Magic -- are pressing for homosexuality to be grouped in with current paraphilias, I don't see why others should give into their insistance. Jokestress speaks of POV fork. Titling this article "List of current paraphilias" is her POV title. As admitted, it's a title for her to make a WP:POINT that paraphilias are not a valid categorization and are "based on definitional quicksand and social custom." On her user page, she also states that she's an inclusionist. She seems to be an extreme inclusionist, however, and likely doesn't see zoophilia as a paraphilia either (and on that note, that article needs a lot of work; a lot of pro-zoophilia edits by a single editor going on there, with the occasional editor combating those edits). Again, no need for a different title. Homosexuality is not a paraphilia, as experts on sexuality/sexual orientation overwhelmingly state, and there is therefore no need that it should be on the Wiki-table. It can have a brief mention in this article, in the lead, or in some History aspect, but this is already covered at the Paraphilia article. 46.165.208.13 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I see your points made (the last ones) and am inclined to agree. If homophilia/sexuality is not clearly seperate from the table it should be removed since it is already present in the Paraphilia article and there is no reason to lump it in with a list of currently classified paraphilias when it is not.
Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ Carolyn Latteier, 1998. (p. 117).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_paraphilias/Archive_2&oldid=1046372803"