Talk:Paraphilia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Homosexuality

Regarding homosexuality as a paraphilia: It is my opinion, although I must say that it is not one shared by the majority of scientific opinion, that it was a wrong decision to stop regarding homosexuality a paraphilia. Rather, one should have fought against the negative connotation of the word 'paraphilia': that something is a paraphilia means nothing more than that it is a sexual desire different from that of the majority. Which is true for homophilia. There is nothing 'bad' about that, and in my opinion, there is also nothing bad about several other paraphilias. If people are happy together enjoying sex of a sado-masochistic or fetishist kind, I can't see anything wrong with that. But that does not mean that we should stop calling them paraphilias as well - just that we should refrain from calling paraphilias a priori sick, harmful, or bad.

N.B.: I removed the statement about homosexuality being removed because it is considered 'harmless', because this would imply that other paraphilias are not harmless. -- Andre Engels

Actually, I think most serious scientists would agree with you, Larry, as would I. It is an issue of semantics, not of substance, but semantics becomes important when politics get involved. I don't think there's any problem, for example, saying that homosexuality was traditionally counted as a paraphilia, and still is by some, but is often excluded from the list because it has a greater level of cultural acceptance than many others. That wording doesn't imply that it or the others are "bad", just that our particular culture happens to accept one more than the others, which is a neutral statement about our culture. --LDC

Doesn't the concept of paraphilia assume that there is a healthy sexual nature that will develop in the absence of disease or trauma? That if disease or trauma are present then sexual development can be turned away from what is healthy? That paraphilia is the technical term for this latter condition, and is not simply a statistical abberation or an individual preference? I always assumed the term was used only in the context of that theory. - Tim

Boy, it is hard to close a can of worms, isn't it? Sexual attraction to corpses is demented regardless of culture. --Larry Sanger

I edited the text of the entry somewhat to indicate when paraphilias become a problem and when they are simply uncommon forms of healthy sexuality. --Vadim Antonov

Article says

Similarly, consensual sadomasochism, exhibitionism, voyeurism and non-psychotic forms of fetishism, urophilia and coprophilia are increasingly becoming culturally acceptable forms of sexuality.

Really? There might be a point here about sadomasochism, but coprophilia and urophilia? I don't see any signs that those activities are anywhere near approaching cultural acceptance anywhere. -- SJK

Why is exhibitionism "non-consensual or criminal" and voyeurism "other"? I don't want anyone watching me; conversely, if someone wants to, and I let them, that's consensual exhibitionism. --Calieber 22:22, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't see the point of calling voyeurism "other" either. I think that at least in issues of law the determining factor is likely to be social context. If one person is walking down the street minding his/her own business and somebody else approaches and takes of his/her single garment, the person who is being approached has good reason to feel threatened. If the flasher is displaying signs of sexual arousal that would be even more threatening, under those circumstances. On the other hand, if somebody is charging money to appear in a strip-tease performance then members of the audience normally wouldn't be able to claim that they had anything sprung on them. Similarly, if somebody is walking around unclothed at a nude beach and other people are watching them, then they can hardly complain. If they are walking around unclothed in their fenced-in back yard and a neighbor climbs a utility pole to get a look at them, then I should think that would be voyeurism of an illegal kind.

As far as the paraphilia aspect of both behaviors go, the question would be whether the exhibitionist and the voyeur need to do those things to get sexually aroused. The nosy neighbor may just be getting evidence for what s/he regards as a crime, and may not be getting a sexual kick out of the experience. Similarly, somebody taking his/her clothes off in front of other people may not attach any sexual significance to it whatsoever, much less getting a sexual kick out of it. My guess is that the other people involved will generally be able to tell whether the motivation is sex or something else. Patrick0Moran 00:43, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Right on Patrick0Moran! You pinned down the biggest problem on Wikipedia. Many users disregard "social context" and only consider the contexts of their personal opinions. It's good notice a high caliber user with a grasp of the approaches of the social sciences, like yourself, at work. 172 00:58, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Autogynephilia

I don't think autogynephilia should be listed here. It's more a theory (and not a very well accepted one)... Should it be removed? Dysprosia 23:31, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It looks like the wording has been altered now - is that a more acceptable wording? Seems to me the issue is not that the concept might exist (I'm sure there are people who exhibit such a trait) but that some try and use it to 'explain' transsexuals. This 'explanation' is not widely agreed with. I also have issues with the listing of Non-consensual and criminal paraphilias which seems to ignore wording higher up the page. Specifically, only non-consensual exhibitionism is illegal (and the word is definitely used these days, at least colloquially, to mean with consent also), and necrophilia is neither necessarily non-consensual nor is it illegal in all jurisdictions, though one or both are often true. There's also the issue that quite a few other paraphilias CAN involve illegal or non-consensual acts. --Morven 00:40, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it's much better now. Dysprosia 00:44, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Controversial

I added a note that calling paraphilias a mental disorder is controversial. It is true that the DSM-IV labels them as such, but this not a universally agreed-upon view within either psychiatry or psychology, and it looks like there will be a large fight over whether they are to be retained in a future DSM-V (expected to be wrangled over from 2005 until 2010 or so). --Delirium 23:55, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

Grouped

I think the line saying: they are grouped together under the term "kinky sex." should be removed since it doesn't prove of an objective attitude towards a serious matter. It is no doubt that the author(s) of this particular sentence has (or have) overlooked common hermeneutic principles by a sense of what they consider to be normal or un-kinky. The term (if that's the right term) "kinky" should again be defined before being used in such a context. I'm almost provoced. - Sigg3.net 22:57, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

P0M: I just had a look at it. I don't think it is a problem, because it is adequately qualified by words that Sigg3 didn't copy above. I think it will be of benefit to some readers because, in the United States at least, that is the way many people who are not professionals in the field of sexology or have not otherwise educated themselves on the subject, would speak of the phenomena we call paraphilia. So if somebody is freaking out because their kid (or whever) is "doing something weird", they may search the WWW for "kinky sex." That is probably what Dr. Ruth would call it on the radio or on T.V. And the prominent sexologist, Dr. John Money, uses the term in introductory discussions of paraphilia in many of his books directed toward the general reader. Neither saying that some people regard a certain practice as a "paraphilia," nor saying that some people call such practices "engaging in kinky sex," reflects a POV of the Wikipedia authors. It doesn't necessarily even reflect a negative POV on the part of the people who use these terms. Our objective should be primarily to explore what the paraphilias are in themselves, but it is not out of place to examine how society may react adversely to people characterized by some of these conditions.

I still think abnormal should substitute kinky. From [www.dictionary.com] I got that kinky first and foremost is (traditionally) related to: "Tightly twisted or curled: kinky hair." While modern slang has changed it to: "Showing or appealing to bizarre or deviant tastes, especially of a sexual or erotic nature." If bizarre was removed, being a word pretty coloured by values, I see your point. Be it deviant or abnormal, kinky is fine. Thanks for helping me get that off my mind. - Sigg3.net 00:08, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I fiddled with the phrasing a little, but maybe it should just be taken out. --Ashibaka

Rewrite

It is important that ones extremely atypical POV does not become presented as fact within an article space. Consuming feces is NOT becoming increasingly socially accepted, altho some of the others are. Some of what I removed could be quite appropriately replaced with valid content milder in its ... sympathies Sam Spade 07:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Recent changes

[P0M:] The current version has a strident and moralistic point of view. The objective of an article on paraphilias should be to explain what a respresentative group of them are, and how they are understood to develop. P0M 03:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The current version has/had a NPOV, presenting facts and general consensus on the subject. Sam Spade 03:39, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Asserting that something is neutral does not make it so.P0M 03:48, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removed

"There is a trend amongst many of left-wing politics, particularly moral relativists and the politically correct, to diminish the negative associations of a wide variety of taboo topics, this being only one."

User:172 removed this from the article with his usual civility and insightful reasoning, and while I think its an important thing to mention, I don't think the article is so lacking without it as to make it an urgent matter. I figure we can take our time, and discuss the passage. Sam Spade 07:31, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spade's comment seems pretty reasonable. Let's not forget to add something ~ Dpr 03:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Norms

"Lie well outside the norm" needs to be explained more. Is the claim that paraphilias are practiced by a statistically very small proportion of the population? If so, that may not apply to all things typically called paraphilias, and certainly not to anything called "kinky sex". Some, particularly some of the milder forms of BDSM (erotic spanking, etc.) are relatively popular, though it's hard to gauge just how popular. Perhaps the claim is instead that they lie outside the popular societal conception of "normal sexual behavior"? I'm not sure how to best describe this. --Delirium 05:51, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I re-worded it based on the APA's definition of what a paraphilia is which more narrowly defines it and removes much of the questionable (dare say POV) aspect to the passage in question. Lestatdelc 00:44, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

It seems that "outside the norm" was changed to "not part of normative". However, the article on normative states that "such statements are impossible to prove or disprove, thus forever banishing them from the world of the scientific." If it is a mental health, and thus psychiatric, term, then it is scientific, in a sense, and there is a contridiction. Hyacinth 04:54, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Dispute?

The article has been noted as {TotallyDisputed} since 2004-04-07 (marked as such by Sam Spade). Has a reasonable compromise been reached yet? If so, can the dispute header be removed? If not, what else needs to be done? - Korpios 04:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How you like them apples? Sam [Spade] 05:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The two edits you made before pulling the dispute header seem fine, so I guess that wraps that up. Thanks! - Korpios 05:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I made a couple after, have a look. I use dispute headers rather than edit warring, it seems to work alot better. If someone insists on deleting good info, or inserting bad info, and reverts my repairs, I simply dispute and move on until the time is right, returning to make the necessary repairs. Sam Spade 05:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problems there, only improvements IMHO. I don't have any issue with noting homosexuality's history under the paraphilia/illness umbrella/definition, since that's fair NPOV. Hell, it's a fairly important part of the history of homosexuality. - Korpios 05:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree w my edits as well of course, just being careful. If you hear some people talk I'm a raving nut who'd like nothing better than to beat gays over the head w my king james bible ;) Sam [Spade] 05:54, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nah, trust me, I'd bitch/modify/revert if I thought they were out-of-line. :p I can't see a good rationale for leaving a (neutral) mention of homosexuality out of the article, and I'd defend its inclusion if it came up. - Korpios 05:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Outerlimits' recent edits

Homosexuality

I feel the recent edit by Outerlimits might've gone too far. For one thing, it contradicts itself:

Early, late, and current definitions of paraphilia do not include homosexuality.

is immediately followed by:

For a brief period of time homosexuality has been included as a paraphilia [...]

Eh? Also, while mentioning that the DSM never technically called homosexuality a paraphilia, that's probably exactly because homosexuality was removed before the term "paraphilia" was inserted into the DSM as a category, as mentioned by Outerlimits; IMHO, an extremely strong case could be made that homosexuality would've been placed under the paraphilia category had it remained. In general, the inclusion of a neutral mention of homosexuality in the article is necessary; based on the definitions given in the intro, it's quite NPOV to mention that homosexuality might be considered one by some. - Korpios 06:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Have another look, its a bit better I think Sam [Spade] 06:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intro

The intro now has way too much in the first line that should be discussed somewhat later. - Korpios 06:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, strike that; looks like Sam Spade's got that handled as well. - Korpios 06:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Paraphilia(s) is a mental health term used to indicate arousal in response to sexual objects or situations that are not part of normative arousal/activity patterns, and that in varying degrees may interfere with the capacity for reciprocal affectionate sexual activity

A good summary, I think. Sam Spade 06:40, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Right — a summary is all the first line should be. History, etc., belongs later. - Korpios 06:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Right right, chip chip cheerio :) Sam [Spade] 06:43, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The time frame is important; it's an "innovative" term that is currently being discarded. Can someone come up with an authority that identifies homosexuality as a "paraphilia" (better than the basically anonymous website currently cited)? - Outerlimits 06:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you don't like that citation you can replace it. It shouldn't be too hard to find a new cite, the fact that homosexuality was (is in many places) viewed as a mental illness is pretty much well known. Sam [Spade] 07:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Confusion of terms" discussion given own section below

What we're looking for is an authority calling homosexuality a paraphilia, not a mental illness. That's far harder to come by. - Outerlimits 07:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See the reply immediately above. BTW, didn't you insert "For a brief period of time homosexuality has been included as a paraphilia [...]" in your original edit? - Korpios 07:17, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My mistake. I shouldn't have included that claim, since there seems to be no one we can name who holds that view. - Outerlimits 07:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Gift from God"

Exactly where did you hear paraphilia described as "a gift from God"? I am becoming concerned about these recent edits. Sam [Spade] 06:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Paraphilia isn't. Homosexuality is so described by the Metropolitan Community Church. - Outerlimits 06:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Metropolitan Community Church will need to be mentioned in regards to any statements of that sort. Shall I place a mention of Fred Phelps as well? Sam [Spade] 07:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Give us the benefit of Fred's erudition. Don't forget the Catholics for demon possession, though you many want to point out that they've given that up. - Outerlimits 07:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point to you that neither are relevant here. Sam [Spade] 07:20, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The point is the fact that someone called homosexuality an "illness" is also irrelevant here. What would be relevant here is if someone called homosexuality a "paraphilia". Outerlimits - 07:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Normative

Do you have any evidence that Paraphilia is statistically normative? I take issue w that insinuation. Sam [Spade] 07:06, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You've misread that insinuation. The point being made is that paraphilia is defined by societal (or "moral") norms, and not statistical norms. - Outerlimits 07:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of that? Sam Spade 07:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That paraphilia is "not part of societally normative arousal/activity patterns"? I think that's actually right on the money. ;) - Korpios 07:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I was refering to it's statistical status, and that "paraphilia is defined by societal (or "moral") norms, and not statistical norms". Sam Spade 07:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No one did statistical studies of which sex acts people actually participated in in order to decide which acts would be classed as paraphilias: rather they translated societal (moral) norms into medical jargon. - Outerlimits 07:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Confusion of term/concept; new article?

I think there's some confusion here between the coining of this particular term, which is relatively new, and the concept. Homosexuality, in the view of some, fits the concept/definition of paraphilia, and that's regardless of the dating of the term. I'm saying this as someone who doesn't agree with that personally, and honestly takes a dim view of the entire concept of "paraphilias". I'm doing this for accuracy and NPOV, period. - Korpios 07:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Terms shouldn't be used anachronistically: if the article wants to be about something other than paraphilia, let it be called that something (pathologized sexuality / deviancy / perversion /bad sex/forbidden sex). So far we don't seem to be able to name anyone(other than anoymous websites) who classifies homosexuality as a paraphilia, which suggests to me that including it here is a very poorly supported Point of View. - Outerlimits 07:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you point to an article that covers the concept of "sexual psychological illness" better? This seems to be the master article on that concept, and I'm not certain why it shouldn't be. Let me cite the dictionaries at my disposal:

• The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary: "Sexual practices that are socially prohibited."
• Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary: "A pattern of recurring sexually arousing mental imagery or behavior that involves unusual and especially socially unacceptable sexual practices (as sadism, masochism, fetishism, or pedophilia)."
• WordNet: "Abnormal sexual activity."

One could argue (although I'd disagree!) that homosexuality is "abnormal"; one can certainly say it's "socially prohibited" to one degree or another in most locales, and one could make a case that it's "sexual behavior" that involves "unusual" and "socially unacceptable" (again, depends on social climate/context!) sexual practices". Hell, those definitions are even broader than the pure "mental illness" one! Find an article that fits the concept better, or make a good case for a new one. :) ::- Korpios 07:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because paraphilia and "sexual psychological illness" are not synonyms. Rename this article to "Sexual psychological illness" if you prefer it, then we can reserve this one to paraphilia. (OL)

the specific list (M-W MD) excludes homosexuality; none of the others are specific enough to be of much use, though none include homosexuality. (OL)

Okay, I might've been too broad with mere "sexual psychological illness"; rather, "sexual psychological illness" of a particular nature, which, again, could arguably encompass homosexuality according to some. Looking at virtually every definition of "paraphilia", they scream exactly what mental-health-definition opponents of gay rights claim — and for that, homosexuality deserves a mention. - Korpios 07:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It deserves a mention if and only if we can find someone to attribute the viewpoint to. - Outerlimits 07:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I need to go crash now; it's 0400 in my time zone (US East). Please don't take any further lack of replies for now as indicating my dismissal or disinterest in the conversation; I just need to recharge and finish writing a term paper. :D - Korpios 07:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cool. If you come back before I do, have a look at [1] which certainly does not classify homosexuality as a paraphilia. Have a good nap/term paper, hopefully not at the same time. - Outerlimits 08:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Go look now; I think I have a solution that works much better. The section on Homosexuality has been changed to a section called "Controversy", talking about how many advocate for removing many of the paraphilias from the DSM/etc., and homosexuality is mentioned in passing as an example of a past removed definition. - Korpios 21:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's much better. There's probably more to be said about the problem of "defining" a mental disease, but that's probably done elsewhere. - Outerlimits 23:12, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Necrophilia and destruction centered pornography

While necrozoophilia is described as sexual attraction to the corpses or killings of animals, or necrobestiality, necrophilia is just plain the sexual attraction to corpses. The article on Necrophilia partially associates the paraphilia with serial killers and the desire to control.

I think it's a fact, that a lot of cartoon pornography exists, that focuses on sexual arousal through the destruction of human life/bodies. Is this part of necrophilia or another paraphilia not mentioned here? Sorry, I know this got bad formatting, but wikipedia is too slow, so I won't figure out how to do it right. --Ados 20:44, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Transvestic Fetishism" and the DSM-IV-TR

"As of 2004, Transvestic Fetishism was still listed as a paraphilia in the DSM-IV-TR."

The issue here is not "is transvestism a paraphilia?", but "does the DSM-IV-TR call it one?", Note that they also make a careful distinction between "Transvestic Fetishism" and gender identity disorder. -- Karada 11:14, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jup, and the difference between transvestitic fetishism on the one hand, and gender identity disorder, transgender, transsexual and transvestitism is a quite significant one. Although in many cases the distinction is not so easy to make, the definitions are very different. Therefore, the article should make it clear what was called a paraphilia and when. AlexR 12:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We need to get an understanding concerning the definition of some words, most specifically, transvestic fetishism. If we are to create and maintain a page that has some similarities to anything that is on-point, then we must decide who, or what, will be the deciding factor on true definitions, statistics and other facts. When we say that the DSM-IV-TR is not the "bible", then where do we start from? To stay on the same item, I could say that transvestic fetishism is not a paraphilia and it should be enveloped by fetishism. I am not creating or maintaining an agenda other than a representation of fact. I am not familiar with the European diagnostic manual, but if it doesn?t specify the same criteria for a disorder, then we need to say that, instead of representing our own views as facts. Here is a scan of the DSM-IV-TR, published by the American Psychological Association, 2000

302.3 Transvestic Fetishism A. Over a period of at least 6 months, in a heterosexual male, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing. B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Specify if: With Gender Dysphoria: if the person has persistent dis�comfort with gender role or identity

I would expect that anyone that would adjust a page concerning paraphilias would have a background in psychology, or yield to those that have made it our life?s work. Please, understand that I am not trying to make this up, or facilitate a personal view of people. It is important to note that to meet the critera, one must gain sexual gradification from this activity. Transgendered persons do not fit this since this is a everyday part of life (they dress as the opposite gender for other reasons, such as comfort and others. Transvestic fetishism is _only_ by those that dress this way in a ... self-sexual? way. They dress this way to achieve orgasm. And has nothing to do with them wanting to be a women. -Thanks. Alan

Well, it is obvious that this is different from GID, and if you had read my comment right above yours, you would not have tried to bother telling me that - I already know. It is besides the point, too, since both versions state that. However, there is no reason - not even the DSM - to claim that only heterosexual males can have transvestic fetishism; that is even more true when one goes by self-identification. While the prevalence among (physical) women is unknown (although it most likely is not zero), there is no reason whatever to limit this to straight males; as if bi- or homosexual males could not have transvestic fetishism. The ICD-10, the classification of the WHO, does not make that surprising (and nonsensical) assumption. I mean, how would the DSM classify a married man who occasionally dresses up in women's clothes and looks for a male partner exclusively in that situation? And that is hardly a rare occurence ... Is that somehow a completely different condition from dressing up and only pleasing oneself, or looking for a woman to have fun with? Sorry, but that lacks both logic and backup by facts. Should you ever get your degree in psychology, hopefully by then you understand that the DSM and similar works aim to be descriptive, not prescriptive (just like Wikipedia, BTW); and that they sometimes are not very good at what they do. -- AlexR 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The key word in the above passage is occasionally dresses as a woman. The individual must gain thier only gradification for a peroid longer than six (6) months. But I can see that you are pushing your own adgenda, and not worried about facts. -Unsigned

POV Check (disputed) tag

With much reflection and reluctance, I've added a {POVCheck}} tag to the article. Signifies: This article may need to be reworded to conform to a neutral point of view; however, the neutrality of this article is not necessarily disputed

As it stands, the article is quite heavily written. Despite some wording to attempt neutrality, and a few lines on "controversy", the overall tone is that paraphilias are defined as a negative, as a group are classified as sins by major religions, and are probably all a mental health issue. The residual impression despite these disclaimers, is that paraphilias by and large mean the more extreme, "bad" and rare sexual abberations. It's this emphasis and overall impression which I am very uneasy about, and feel is overstated and gives a wrong perception.

Examples of POV phrases

Here are some phrases in the article as it stands:

• "a rarely used label"
• "sexual desires or activities that lie well outside the societal norm"
• "kinds of behavior that are generally regarded as taboo"
• "intended to indicate sexual acts that meet with societal disapproval" (factually incorrect - this isn't in any sense the "intent" of the definition nor necessarily even accurate)
• section commences "What is considered to be "perversion" or "deviation" varies from society to society..." (implication and impression: paraphlia is equivalent to "perversion", a non clinical term with highly POV implications)
• As a group, "In some religions they are considered sins." (although many sexual non-paraphilias are categorised as sins, and many paraphilias are not categorised as sins)

These may be linguistically accurate taken one at a time, but taken as a group and without a clear line setting out that actually they are a catch-all category psychologists use for 'miscellaneous sexual quirks' which they aren't quite sure how to categorise (so to speak), the overall impression is quite misleading.

In addition:

• Inadequate or no mention is made that a variety of paraphilias are said to not be an issue at all from a mental health point of view, unless (1) accompanying some other category of condition and connected with it, or (2) causing suffering etc. But they are labelled with the same perjoratives as above anyway, by saying "these are paraphlias" and by implication perversions, mental health issues, possibly harmful or objectively wrong, sins, etc.
• The section "controversy" makes some points which are more relevant near the start, not near the end of the article.
• The section "religion" once again, basically says some religious observers view paraphilias as wrong - but this is factually inaccurate. they don't. They may say certain paraphilias are wrong, but i don't see religious leaders or conservative saying paraphilias as a class are wrong.

Misleading definition

The definition of paraphilia in DSM is "the presence of repeated and intense sexually arousing fantasy, sexual urge or behavior that generally involve [any of]: 1) nonhuman objects... 2) ..." -- which is a deliberately very neutral definition. It allows that some paraphilias are harmless or may be considered so in some cultures, that others are harmful, and yet others may be either. The following are some typical clinical warnings given against improper assumptions about paraphilias. They probably belong in the article too:

• "Paraphilias are ... sexual fantasies, urges and behaviors that are considered deviant with respect to cultural norms..."
• "Although several of these disorders can be associated with aggression or harm, others are neither inherently violent nor aggressive"
• "The boundary for social as well as sexual deviance is largely determined by cultural and historical context. As such, sexual disorders once considered paraphilias (e.g., homosexuality) are now regarded as variants of normal sexuality; so too, sexual behaviors currently considered normal (e.g., masturbation) were once culturally proscribed"

Suggested neutral and more accurate approach

To my mind, a more appropriate approach to an article on paraphilia would be:

• Clinically define it.
• State that it is a catch-all category for sexual impulses, urges and behaviours outside the norm, and that therefore it includes:

• Some such as paedophilia which are generally agreed harmful
• Some such as transvestitism (cross dressing), fetishism or "water sports" which are essentially felt to be harmless and clinically acceptable in the West (though possibly still a matter preferred kept private), provided the person is not reporting experiencing dysfunction or mental suffering, and nobody is getting hurt, and
• Some such as exhibitionism and voyeurism which (within moderation) are actually a regular part of a healthy sex life for many people.

• That therefore "paraphilia" is not a judgemental term, it simply signifies a group of sexual or erotic activities which are deemed worthy of recognition but not given major reference categories of their own.
• That the important thing clinically about paraphilias is therefore not "are they right or wrong" so much as "are they causing suffering or are they experienced as a positive thing for that person (and others)".
• That the test for many paraphilias is therefore subjective and fluid, and how something is categorised depends to a great deal on what cultural norms are applicable, and whether the activity is causing suffering or inhibiting a normal life.
• That for many paraphilias, provided these things are not the case, then they are not in fact considered clinically significant or symptoms of a mental health problem (unless there is already evidence of some other more serious issue and the paraphilia is connected to it)

Finally, the heart of the "controversy" is not quite as stated. The controversy over paraphilias is much more along the lines - is it a real category, or just culturally subjective? Is it in effect just saying "its a problem if its a problem"? And possibly, is there a "fudge factor" on how it's decided what is listed as a paraphilia, what isn't, and what the definitions will be? FT2 21:15, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

Kim

Well said. There is, however, another possibility involved that may be relevant: The religious account is presumably that some people decide to do things of a sexual nature that go against natural law. The clinical categorization approach apparently attempts to be value neutral and simply to define the behavior that may be problematical in some social contexts -- either for the individual or for the community. The third kind of account attempts to understand and explain what the "para" is actually based on. In so doing, it may give insight into the apparently unexplanable behaviors of some groups of people, and it may even give indications of life situations the avoidance of which can minimize the development of problematical desires and behaviors. This account says that a paraphilia can result when life events impact and distort the ordinary maturational and learning development of an individual's sexuality. For instance:

• Trauma during the earliest instances of organism can make the trauma-producing event (or some part of it) an expected component of sexual arousal and/or climax.
• Association of sexual arousal and climax (coming out of adolescent sex play, for instance) with other behavior and stimuli that are connected in other mammals (and probably in humans although by now "civilized" out of us) can make them expected components of sexual arousald and/or climax.
• Alleviation of socially conditioned feelings of guilt by some compensatory mechanism, and thereby the reduction of inhibitions against sexual activity, can make the compensatory mechanism a needed or at least very rewarding component of sexual arousal and/or climax.

Understood in this way, one can separate etiology from questions of danger to individuals. An individual who only can enjoy orgasm in cases where either s/he or his/her partner is punished to "pay for the sin" and balance the books as it were may be entirely innocent in regard to the original trauma that established this condition. Nevertheless, his/her need to produce suffering may have very severe consequences that the society ought to deal with to protect its individual members (including the person suffering from this paraphilia). (金)

The explanations for problematical behavior of the first group rest on authority, not science. The assertions of the second group do not attempt to explain, only to categorize in a value-neutral way. The assertions of the third group are all testable by scientific means, although there are ethical limits to what can be done experimentally with humans. As this kind of behavior may involve elements of the "nature and nurture" matrix, determining whether life events really cause a given paraphilia may depend on careful studies of identical twins. As both paraphilias and identical twins are uncommon, accumulation of enough positive instances to inspire faith in some etiological theory might take a great deal of time. However, it only takes one good negative instance to shoot a theory down, so it would be unreasonable, I think, to consign these ideas to the scrapheap for quasi-science.(金)

The issue of the degree of disfunctionality of these behaviors has one foot in the factors of human interaction in which all societies probably agree (e.g., it is bad to kill your neighbor for no valid reason) and the other foot in factors upon which societies may disagree. Public nudity, for instance, may be arousing for an individual and offensive for bystanders in large parts of the world. But in some parts of the world, especially before Christianity and other such religions carried their messages to those places, the public nudity of an individual who needed it to experience arousal might never become an issue. (The fact of arousal "on the beach" rather than in the beach house might become an issue, but that is a slightly different angle on the problem.) (金)

If something is a "paraphilia" only in a certain society, it hardly seems to me that it could be a real condition of the individual. In fact, I can't think of any way to finish the sentence: "Only among members of this one group is _____ considered a paraphilia." Calling something a paraphilia seems to me to necessarily imply that some causal contingent factor produced a detour in the normal course of an individual's development.(金)

On the other hand, the "normalcy" of life events is a statistical idea. What happens in cases wherein the precipitating factor is so common in a given society that the vast majority of people are programmed by it? For instance, it may be biologically perfectly unexceptional for human beings to be able to engage in intercourse in the daylight and in view of other people. But in a given society such sexual interaction may be so strongly inhibited that darkness and privacy become necessary for intercourse to even be initiated. (金)

The key ideas seem to be plasticity, problematicity, and frequency of appearance. Attempting to evaluate how far a given behavior is removed from the "intended purpose of sexual intercourse" may be a fruitless exercise, as, from the perspective of the individual, all such behaviors may be things needed by the individual to achieve intercourse in the first place. That question is indeed likely to be relative to the culture. 金 (Kim) 02:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FT2

1) Paraphilias include a wide range of sexual practices. These have some common characteristics, but no central unified definition, and that's obvious from the way the category is discussed, defined and changes over time.

That may be a consequence of the way languages changes over time. The term "paraphilia" was invented by John Money (q.v.) to try to factor out value judgments while trying to understand why some clients felt sexual arousal under unusual circumstances -- especially the cases where some unusual stimulus is necessary for someone to experience arousal and/or climax. In a medical context, one deals primarily with conditions that are viewed as problematical by somebody. But once the term came to currency it became a 'buzz word," and other people adapted it and redefined it to fit their own needs. (金)

People assume that there is a normal form of sexual interaction, but they may form that idea simply by looking at the form of sexual behavior that is most common. What is most common depends on culture. It depends on learning. (金)

People assume that there is a true biological purpose for sexual interaction, reproduction, and that there are no other valid reasons for having sexual relations. But nature is more flexible than human invented languages and conceptual systems. In simple animals, the males provide semen to fertilize eggs and that is the end of the matter. But from the level of birds on up, sexual intercourse has also promoted pair bonding. What may be non-reproductive sexual intercourse contributes to maintaining the bond between the parents that is necessary for their cooperation in the rearing of their young. Among some primates, sexual activity can help maintain the cohesiveness of the community that is necessary for the successful rearing of generation after generation of offspring.(金)

People assume that sex is natural and "instinctive," but among many primates there is a window period in childhood when sexual experimentation must occur to permit a kind of learning that is necessary for adult sexual success. The situation with humans is not well understood because we cannot ethically interfere with childhood sexuality by experimentally trying to assure that learning takes place or by experimentally trying to assure that learning does not take place.(金)

To really define paraphilias in an objective way, we would first have to understand the "normal" course of human sexual development. But it is impossible to find out how people would develop sexually "if everybody left them alone" because that would be a truly abnormal developmental situation. In fact, if a small group of children were isolated and allowed to develop sexually, my guess is that their sexualities would be highly idiosyncratic because there would not be the tempering effect of exposure to sexualities of individuals as they have evolved in a stable social setting. (金)

What can be done is to investigate sexual behaviors statistically across cultures. We might find some low frequency behaviors that would be hard to understand unless we factored in things like economics. E.g., why is premarital heterosexual behavior permitted in a small number of traditional societies and strongly condemned (and therefore statistically rather rare) in a large number of other traditional societies. It turns out that there are economic factors involved that are in turn influenced by social institutions that in some cultures make supporting an unmarried daughter a financial burden and marrying off a virgin daughter a financial success. But we seem generally able to sort these factors out. (金)

When we come to identifying statistically "abnormal" sexual outcomes, we may find that it is necessary to look at things culture by culture. What is rare in one culture may be common in another. The members of one culture might be astounded to learn that the members of another culture regarded the situation in which both participants in attempted intercourse had to be touching the floor with one foot in order to succeed to be a paraphilia instead of a daily fact of life. ;-) (金)

Probably the things that come to the attention of researchers will most often be the ones that cause problems for the person trying to be sexually active and/or for other people in the community and that are sufficiently rare that most people do not understand from their own experience how certain individuals learn these behaviors or preferences. (金)

2) The problem I have with saying "paraphilias as a group are X" is that it's inaccurate. Some are harmful, some not. Some paraphilias would be classed as sins under some religions, some not. A hundred years ago masturbation was a pathology, now thats changed. (Speculatively) it would be classed as a paraphilia back then, but not now. About the only constant in human relationships is that there will always be some form of accceptable manner in which an adult man and an adult woman can agree to have sex. The issue of "is it a sin" isn't logically or structurally related to the class of paraphilias per se.

Is it harmful for anybody if somebody has to wear a crown of mistletoe to be able to achieve intromission? I don't think so. At least nobody is getting hurt in this situation. (It may become very burdensome to aquire the needed mistletoe, however.) On the other hand, garden variety, missionary position sexual intercourse is statistically common (or statistically normal) but definitely harmful if done by some guy because he owns a slave he finds sexually attractive. Medically, one may never deal with the non-harmful paraphilias, but that doesn't change the fact that the learning path to get to the paraphilia may be very convoluted and unusual. (金)

Masturbation is probably statistically more "normal" than any other kind of sexual behavior. It is extremely easy to learn, so easy, in fact, that most people learn how to do it entirely on their own -- or would if knowledge of it were not so common in their cultures. It is necessary for male humans, if no other source of sexual release is available, to prevent a condition colloquially known as "priest's prostate". It is "para" to the extent that it does not serve any reproductive purpose, but remember that humans are hard-wired to be able to use their genitalia for useful purposes other than reproduction. So the behavior typically only becomes problematical in certain kinds of societies.(金)

You can say something like, "paraphilias as a group are X", where the "X" means "a rare learning outcome," but the value component, the "sin quotient" of an act or practice, is only relevant to how likely either the individual or the community is to want to change the individual's behavior. So I have to agree that such axiological issues do not pertain to the definition of "paraphilia," but only to a kind of side-bar issue: How do certain societies regard certain kinds of statistically abnormal behavior? (It occurs to me ask whether monogamy is a paraphilia. It's certainly a rare practice. Even "serial monagamy" is pretty rare.)

3)So I think one thing for sure is to recognise that this class of psychology is to some extent a construct, it may have no symptoms and there may be no "clinicality" involved, no implication of pathology or dysfunction, shades of grey.

Actually, there are two problems here. (1) Some individuals may behave in sexually related ways that are both rare and also socially problematical because of their individual pathologies. The father of Jeffrey Dahmer has written a book in which he indicates that sees in himself some dysfunctional reactions to the world that he believes he was born with, and that he sees these kinds of reactions more strongly in the early as well as the later, deadly destructive, behavior of his son. Some individuals may have genetic abnormalities and some individuals may have suffered brain traumas that lead to unusual and problematical outcomes in their sexualities. (2) Even a normal individual may be sometimes driven in an abnormal developmental direction by some trauma. A normal reaction to, e.g., being discovered and beaten by one's father at the point of orgasm the first time one has sexual intercourse, may be that violence and pain become a part of the working definition of how to achieve sexual ecstasy. (金)

4) Another thing is to remove blanket implications that the class of paraphilias is this or that - a sin, a problem, abusive, violent - because some are, but others arent. Suppose I'm a Christian and I come to Wikipedia to look up my interest in wanting to watch my wife masturbate. Thats voyeurism, and voyeurism is defined as a paraphilia, and paraphilias [implied:collectively] are [implied:all] considered sins by many religions. In fact I discover I'm suffering from a "rare" condition which is classified with pedophilia, sadism and fetishism. Therapist please!

The whole point in talking about "paraphilia" from the get-go was to remove the value judgments from the scene so that the phenomenon could be understood without condemning the individual who exhibits the statistically uncommon behavior. So it may be possible to understand why, for instance, Jeffrey Dahmer killed and preserved his subjects of erotic interest on ice. We don't just want to understand this because of detached academic interest. We don't have to hate Jeffrey Dahmer to want to be able to take steps to understand what produced his unusual sexuality and to try to prevent that kind of outcome from occurring again. Take a less intense example. On the surface, there is nothing particularly harmful to other people if a young man can only get an erection and achieve orgasm after he has dressed in women's clothing. But, his sexuality having grown in an unusual direction, he may be unable to form a sexual and emotional attachment to another human being because the ordinary course of development in which affection and sexuality become melded together was not followed. For his sexual partners this result may not be ideal because they may discover that he doesn't feel affection for them. Affection is not the trigger for his arousal. If something like that happens it's not so bad for the sexual partner, who can just go away disappointed. But it leaves this young man forever losing one potential soul-mate after another. Maybe he will never get love and sexuality together. So even though we understand this young man, we understand that his sexuality was not anybody's fault, we see that he is not trying to hurt anybody, and we see that the events that formed his sexuality have precluded developments that other people find to be essential parts of their lives. If we understand how this paraphilia developed, maybe we will have the possibility of avoiding a similar course of development for our own children. Maybe it will even become possible to free the young man up to relate to other people more fully than he has been able to do up to now. (金)

5) I still feel my outline above is a good approach to paraphilia. But I like your approach quite a lot too. Can you draft below a revised article which balances DSM-4 and both of them? How you'd see it?

What is your reaction to the above points? I'm actually learning from this exchange as I sort of think out loud. (金)

6) And an odd question - Thoughts on the following views (not for the article, just curious which ones you think are more accurate and why):

• Paraphilia is a sexual interest other than adult consensual heterosexual intercourse, typically involving objects other than humans as a primary interest. (definition by activity)
• Paraphilia is a sexual interest not considered the norm within a society. (definition by normality)
• Paraphilia is a sexual interest other than adult intercourse which is causing suffering, harm, or dysfunction in normal sexuality. (definition by side-effects)

None of the above. How about

• Sexuality, like many other phenomena, exhibits a great deal of variation. The more some behavior departs from the statistical norm of a society, the more likely, and/or strongly, it is to be regarded as a paraphilia. There are at least three factors that may be involved in such departures from the statistical norm: (1) differences in learning, (2) traumatic life events, and (3) genetic differences.

7) (And - again curiosity only, is it a culture-dependent or culture-independent decision whether to categorise homosexuality as a "paraphilia", insofar as it inhibits heterosexual relationships?)

Odd though it may seem, the cultures that do not attempt to inhibit sexuality seem to have the least trouble with homosexuality. That is to say, the learning experienced by a child who is to try many different non-abusive ways of relating to cohorts will generally teach the child that s/he can gain at least as much sexual satisfaction from his/her friend's hand as from his/her own, and so forth. That being established, the young person is then free to explore whether a same-sex or a different-sex person is the one to bond to for the long term. Generally, people tend to opt for children, "immortality" through reproduction, etc., but probably not directly for those reasons. Heterosexuality is probably the statistical norm, but that goes in two ways: It is the statistical norm if you look at all instances of intercourse in (almost) any society, and, it is the statistical norm if you look at all instances of intercourse in most members of a society. But you will find the occasional individual who never experiences sex, the somewhat more frequent individual who never experiences sex with a member of the same sex, the perhaps equally infrequent individual who never experiences sex except with a member of the same sex, and (what I believe is the majority) the people who have some mixture of same-sex and other-sex interactions.

In short, as far as I know, exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexuality are rare. It will be the rare person who does not experience some learning that leads in each direction. What kinds of learning are encouraged, and what kinds of learning are discouraged, are culturally determined -- but generally for understandable reasons. (People get ideological about these things, but like other social constructs there is a core of fact somewhere that the constructs get built on. Different cultures, however, may choose different core facts to build on. Sparta valued homosexuality for "practical" reasons. Whether their idea that erotic attraction, love for one's cohorts, would promote battlefield valor is a question about which I would hazard no guess.)

According to a strict definition, I guess, almost any sexuality is a "paraphilia" and almost any sexuality is a "normal response" to the indivual's particular social environment. So homosexuality, in that sense, would be categorized as a paraphilia. On the other hand, there seems to be no identifiable mutation (genetic abnormality in other words), no physical trauma, no particular and unusual social learning not experienced by the average person, that can account for it. We worry about it a very great deal, whereas we do not worry about the rare paraphilias (such as the one that John Money whimsically termed "formicophilia" or "ant-eroticism"). We worry because almost all of us are capable of getting aroused by a member of the same sex, and almost all of us are socially insecure enough to get defensive about the fact that we have gotten aroused by somebody we are "not supposed to" get aroused by. So by the standard of "how close is this behavior to the statistical norm" I'd have to say that if it is not "normal" it is not very "abnormal." It's too close to normal for comfort. (金)

As far as cultures go, ideologies about homosexuality vary considerably. Western culture has, historically, been so worried about sexuality in general, so much in need to defend against the sin of sexuality (which can only be temporarily rid of its sinful quality when sanctioned by the priest and forgiven whenever it goes beyond "natural law"), that homosexuality has been given an extremely negative value. Some cultures have gone to the other end of the stick and have "valorized" it. Thai culture seems to happily accomodate to all kinds of sexuality as long as it isn't hurting somebody. Chinese culture from its beginning down to and past early missionary contacts was tolerant of homosexuality. The Chinese Communist regime for a long time claimed that homosexuality was a disease of the decadent West, but that turned out to be self-deception at best, and probably wilful disregard for the actual occurrence of behavior that had been criminalized and demonized. The Japanese were quite open and happy about it until after World War II, when a desire to look better as judged by what they took to be Western standards led to attempts to eliminate it. It's not clear to me that any major change in prevalence of homosexual behavior ever occurred, but I don't know how one could get the statistics to back my opinion up -- or to contest it. I could give other examples, but the short answer is that up to recently, at least, ideology has tended to trump everything except perhaps underlying and unstated cultural values. Paraphilia is a recently invented concept, so it's hard to apply it retroactively, but value judgments about homosexuality vary according to which culture you're looking at. And speaking of "looking at", check out some of the statues on temple walls in India. 金 (Kim) 18:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FT2 22:16, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

You're slipping somewhere - I think.

You get there at one point, when you say "So I have to agree that such axiological issues do not pertain to the definition of "paraphilia," but only to a kind of side-bar issue: How do certain societies regard certain kinds of statistically abnormal behavior?"

But this isnt an article about socially normal sex, or socially functional sex per se. Its an article about Paraphilia. The issue of the article is "write an encyclopedia entry on paraphilia", and it could be anything so long as it states whats known about the subject. You say a lot of words, and I agree with many, but too often you write a lot but don't actually answer the question in the end. The issue isn't "people who behave a particular way", its "a clinical condition with a named title". So although the term is based on people, ultimately I'm looking for conclusions couched and resolved in terms of knowledge about "paraphilia the condition", not "people who do X"

I have numbered the points for easy reference. Examples:

1, is a question about "are paraphilias a wide range with no central unified definition that changes". Answer is about how sexuality varies and what researchers may notice, but never returns to paraphilia, never says "Do I agree or disagree that these are identifying characteristics of 'paraphilia' (whatever paraphilia may be defined to be)"

2, you answer

3, question "is paraphilia really just a construct (possibly for these reasons)", answer "here are ways people can develop unusual sexual directions"

4, question is, "here is a problem with making comments about paraphilias as a 'class', because the class may not have a lot in common". An example is given of a negative way it could do harm to do so. Answer "the idea of the term is to remove value judgement and maybe we can learn how people develop"

5, my reaction - when you actually answer them :-)

(more seriously, good answers and interesting, but thi sisnt an article on "how do humans develop sexually normally or abnormally", its "tell me about the clinical term paraphilia")

6, Again, I asked for a definition of paraphilia, or rather a selection of one of three, and the answer is a description how sexuality develops.

Serious point - how on earth can we discuss a term which is considered so real clinicians use it, if the term can't be discussed as a term? "How does vision work" is different from "what are eye defects", and "emotional control issues" are different from "how do children grow up emotionally different from the norm". Thats how I see the answers - fascinating and intriguing, but not actually about the questions posed... too much slipping from

• "Tell me about about what paraphilia signifies as a term and its validity as a term" (question), to
• "Talk about sexual development and its variations and etiology"

7, this ios the only point where you say something that is actually to the heart of it (as I see it). Its a good one though!

"According to a strict definition, I guess, almost any sexuality is a "paraphilia" and almost any sexuality is a "normal response" to the indivual's particular social environment. So homosexuality, in that sense, would be categorized as a paraphilia. On the other hand, there seems to be no identifiable mutation (genetic abnormality in other words), no physical trauma, no particular and unusual social learning not experienced by the average person, that can account for it."

It doesnt answer the question: does this mean that the classification of homosexuality as paraphilia or non-oparaphilia is a subjective one? Or is there objectivity? Its an important question because if we can't have a way to tell if the term applies, or if it is defined to include or exclude everything, then its useless, a tautology. So - if I say "homosexuality is/is not a paraphilia", have I made a subjective, or an objective statement by the definition of the term?

Chew on those, looking forward to the thoughts back, sorry if Im rough but I'm enjoying the discussion !!! FT2 23:59, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Reply to FT2

This isn't a good time to answer your questions in detail. When I responded to the issues you brought up above I was not particularly thinking about how the article might best be (re)written but about some of the underlying issues. "Paraphilia" is a word. When we look at writing an article on the topic of paraphilia are we better off to characterize the phenomena that people are trying to describe by using that word, and then show how the principal actors on the social stage use the same word in different ways to say things about the phenomenon from different viewpoints? Or will we do a better job if we take one point of view as canonical and either ignore other points of view or describe them as they compare and contrast to the canonical view? You mention clinicians as though they might be the right ones to choose. (金)

One of the really big problems in writing articles on topics like this one is that paraphilia is a construct, and people imagine that in saying that they have distinguished paraphilia for categories like "bison." But most human conceptualizations are based on some combination of empirical observations and order imposed on those observations by the creative power of the human mind. If we write an article on cats, for instance, we can imagine that we are focussing on a large set of animals that are related by genetic inheritance. We are, we say, simply relating the facts that are known about cats. But the historical fact that some people group the cheetahs as members of the cat family is due to constructive acts of human minds that impose a picture of order, a relatively simple picture of order, on an incredible multiplicity of real-world feline, and perhaps quasi-feline, mammals. (金)

So to me the crucial thing to see is that there are lots and lots of observations, lots and lots of data points if you will, that humans arrange into some semblance of order, and that applies to cats as well as to paraphilias. The data should take precedence, and the interpretations should be discussed in terms of how well they can be substantiated. 金 (Kim) 05:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I can agree with that. As you say - when one writes an article on X, are you writing it on the defined use of X with notes saying how it's used in common use, or are you describing what people mean by X even if its actually quite different, and almost downgraing the "correct" definition to a lesser importance?

These questions aren't trivial. Is a Paraphiliac someone with a rare and extreme sexual interest, or is he someone who doesn't even have a paraphilia unless its troubling him? Is a Christian someone who the general public (or some part of them) calls a Christian, or someone who follows the literal definition of the word (according to some authoritative source be it dictionary, church or gospels)? Is a Paedophile a child abuser (popular conception) or someone who has an eroitc interst in children which is quite uinder control and mild, and may never extend to more than an enjoyment of imagination?

Its a common question. There should be a name for it :) Its even tougher when the "label" isnt defined other than by reference to some norm that itself isn't well defined. Normality is one such (including "normal" sex life), Sanity maybe another. How do you define terms which in part are based upon terms which themselves are part subjective and part objective and in truth not at all firmly defined? Does that get you thinking any further, how we approach such articles? FT2 05:34, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Do we have a citation for the "common among serial killers" quote, or is it just hearsay? FT2 23:52, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Redophilia

"redophilia: sexual attraction to redheads, sometimes with emphasis on red pubic hair. "Redophiles" use an English prefix to the word because the Greek would be too cumbersome to use in conversation." Wouldn't most greek words be? The greek word seems to be "erysophilia", the prefix has three syllables, which is not extremely cumbersome. It's more likely that the english word is a pun on unrelated "Paedophilia".

Excuse me, but shouldn't redhead fetish me omitted from the list of paraphilias? Redheads are people. Is this some kind of joke? This must be some kind of joke. I will remove it now and ask questions later. Flying Hamster 18:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, I have to say that it would fall into the category of fetishes and therefore is a paraphilia. It's an attraction (-philia), or potentially a fixation in some cases, to something, shall we say superficial or material about another person's appearance. That would be the "para-" part. But to be quite honest I'm not sure how seriously the whole "paraphilia" thing should be taken. I personally like blondes a little more than bruettes as far as physical attraction goes, I think a girl smoking can look classy and somewhat sexy, there are certain styles of clothing I find more attracive than others, but none of this makes me or anyone else a "philiac"! I know this will sound wholly unscientific and maybe ignorant, but maybe we all have "paraphilias" or "fetishes" in a denotative sense, but what is really of concern is whether or not you have one in the conotative sense, that meaning, is it taking up more time and energy in your life than it should? So there is that blurry line between normal and F'd up!