Talk:Paraphilic infantilism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

infantilism and ABs, fetishism and DLs, AB/DLs

Since the paraphilia article simply lists AB/DL as the common term for infantilism, I'd think it wouldn't be an issue. However, since I wasn't able to get a strong buy-in here, I propose we discuss its introduction in a detailed manner. This would be an addition to the "medical aspects" paragraph. We should consider moving it up since we'd also like to use AB, DL, and AB/DL in the lead. Here are the points I think the new text should make, and some refs. Feel free to propose additional sources (preferably under the points, worksheet-style) or alternate wordings. BitterGrey (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I might be missing something but I can't see AB/DL listed as a common term for infantilism in that article?FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Which article? BitterGrey (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• A)paraphilic infantilism is defined in the DSM, as a type of masochism.

1.DSM pg 572 "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism')."

Good. But perhaps it would better to say that it is a subtype of masochism?FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

IMO it's a behaviour of some masochists, not a subtype (at least within the context of the DSM). Other sources do muddy this unfortunately, but deal with them separate from the DSM. If a reliable citation can be found for this idea separate from the DSM, then obviously we can use that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I've modified the proposal. BitterGrey (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

2.Arndt, pg 394: "Infantilism is the achieving of erotic feelings by being treated as an infant. ... This paraphilia combines features of fetishism, transvestism, and masochism; it is mentioned as a form of sexual masochism in DSM-III-R."BitterGrey (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• B)this definition includes a criterion B, which not all who are interested in such things meet.

1.DSM pg 573 "Criterion B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." 2.<original research> Around 40% of AB/DLs reported meeting Criterion B.</original research>

As a matter of interest, how have you measured that they meet a clinical level of impairment or distress?FiachraByrne (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

They reported it in two questionsSurvey 1 Questions 19 & 20.BitterGrey (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

3.Pate, JE; Gabbard, GO (2003). "Adult baby syndrome". The American Journal of Psychiatry. 160 (11): 1932–6. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1932. PMID 14594737. (mentions distress and impairment as criterion for rejecting diagnosis, but doesn't call it criterion B) 4.DSM pg 568 "Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment..." ( Criterion B, outside the context of a specific paraphilia. )

I think, however, we can refer to the sexual disorders workgroup (maybe not the right name) for DSM V and the literature that they cite in regard to the distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorder. That might put the impairment/distress issue to bed.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Better with an explicit reference, I think there's probably something in one of the articles or books but nothing springs to mind. This would be a good distinction to make. If a reliable source does a good job working through this, we could perhaps split or redirect the page - the main would be "adult baby" where it is discussed as a sexual fetish. Diaper lover would be identified as a sub-type, and paraphilic infantalism would be mentioned for when it causes distress. That seems to be the truest interpretation of the terminology, crippled as it is by a lack of good and thorough research base, but naturally we'd have to wait for better sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

DSM5 might be a moving target until it is printed. It might be best to stick with in-print sources.BitterGrey (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah - I see from his wiki that Blanchard headed up the paraphilia subgroup for DSM 5 and the distinction between paraphilia and paraphilic disorder is his. I still think it makes sense to cite this at some point in the article.FiachraByrne (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• C)diaper fetishism, or more generally fetishism, is defined by the DSM.

1. DSM pg 569-570 (fetishism section)

No. It is not. What you could do is something like: Diaper fetishism has been recognised as a distinct fetish [ref. Joe Blogs, p.93]. The DSM defines a fetish as ... [ref: DSM IV-TR pp 569-70]' Go from the specific to the general, in this instance, not the other way around.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would rather not do this, as it's original research (specifically a synthesis) and I think it's a bad practice. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne - that seems reasonable. We wouldn't even need a ref that it was a distinct fetish, just that it is a fetish.BitterGrey (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• D)community term for those with infantilism-like interests is adult baby (AB).

1. Pate, JE; Gabbard, GO (2003). "Adult baby syndrome". The American Journal of Psychiatry. 160 (11): 1932–6. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1932. PMID 14594737. <"Adult baby syndrome". The American journal of psychiatry 160 (11): 1932–6. PMID 14594737. http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/160/11/1932. ...> FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
2. "Come hither: a commonsense guide to kinky sex" By Gloria G. Brame, p 174

Good.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• E)community term for those with diaper-fetish-like interests is diaper lover (DL).

1. 101 Things You Didn't Know about Sex By Eve Marx, and this comes from p.145[1]

I know I sourced this, but is there anything better? Might have to say that the term is not used by the medical practitioners and that it's an exclusively community term. Also, at least as indicated by Cantor, that some medical practitioner/psychologists have speculated that this could be an incomplete or unrealised form of infantilism.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you think the proposed text wrongly implies that this is a medical term? If so, we can adjust the proposed text. BitterGrey (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nah. I just would have like a better source. I think I have one here: In some instances, ABS seems to represent a paraphilia.An online search reveals a number of websites regarding this, with those persons preferring to call themselves Diaper Lovers. It is often referred to as a diaper fetish in the scientific literature. DOI 10.1007/s10508-011-9783-8 I think that should cover it. I'm not very knowledgeable about this field but the more I look at it the less I think that paraphilia (dubious concept?) actually captures the full picture of what is going on here. I know we're doing this article at the moment, but I think that User:Bittergrey, at least, really wants to write an article about AB/DL rather than infantile paraphilia. There'd be the same problem of sources but potentially more leeway ...FiachraByrne (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly relate to wanting a better source. The Kise article looks interesting. As for the article being about the people instead of the conditions, it makes sense to discuss them together. The main reason I opened this discussion first is because the AB/DL terminology affected other points. BitterGrey (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Going to bed now but email me if you want the article. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• F) since two communities aren't separate, they are often called "AB/DLs".

1. Watson, J (2005-06-09). "Baby Man". Phoenix New Times. Retrieved 2011-02-28.
2. Taormino, T (2002-08-13). "Still in Diapers". The Village Voice. Retrieved 2007-05-08.
3. 101 Things You Didn't Know about Sex By Eve Marx, and this comes from p.145[2]

Good. But I'd argue we'd have to signal in the text when we're switching from medical or academic sources to journalistic accounts. Due to the nature of the sources we need to establish context.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Attribution seems the standard approach - X person publishing in Y source said... We're hamstrung by the lack of good sources and research, so we'll have to be careful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne, well medical terms and sources to non-medical terms and sources. Do you think the proposed text does this adequately, or does it need to be adjusted?BitterGrey (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

PROPOSED WORDINGS:

• Medically, paraphilic infantilism is defined by the APA as a sub-type of masochism[A1]. This definition first appeared in DSM IIIR, in 1987[IIIR pg ?]. Similarly, the DSM also defines fetishism[C1]. As with all paraphilias, a medical diagnosis is only given if clinically significant distress or impairment is present[B4], often called "Criterion B"(eg [B1(same citation as A1)][C1]). The community term for those with infantilism-like interests is "adult baby (AB)"[D1][D2], and for those with diaper-fetish like interests, it is "diaper lover (DL)"[E1]. Since the two communities aren't separate, they are often collectively called AB/DLs[F1][F2][F3]. AB/DLs may or may not meet Crition B.

Thoughts? I was hoping that others would insert references, comment on the points, or propose wording. If people are OK with the result, please write so and then we can move on to the other items that use the AB/DL terminology.BitterGrey (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if all paraphilic infantilists were masochists, you still could not apply all information on masochists to all paraphilic infantilists as not all masochists may dress up as and desire being treated as babies. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My only problem is with the line Similarly, the DSM also defines fetishism. It does of course, but you need another source before that establishing diaper lovers or whatever term as a fetish. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if we're leading with the big classification systems it should probably be stated that infantilism does not appear in ICD-9 or ICD-10. Can we say that ourselves or do we need a secondary source to observe that for us?

Also after this I would move to the medical/academic literature, secondary or tertiary, that discusses infantilism in more detail. That means Cantor et al. then probably Pate. We need sources that survey the literature and we given the paucity of sources we have to use these.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can WP:UCS regards the ICD-10, I just did searches for infantilism, infantilist, diaper, baby and got nothing. Leave the DSM out bar the reference to the behaviour of masochists. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne, noting your recurrent mention of Cantor and assuming good faith, I'll point out that that source defines infantilism as "an autoerotic form of pedophilia" (Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology pg 531, under the heading "Erotic Target Location and Location Errors.") In some presentations, he refers to it as "autopedophilia," analogous to other terms that have come out of his group, autoandrophilia and autogynephilia. The assertion that infantilism is a type of pedophilia is a greatly offensive fringe theory that has no place in Wikipedia. Please comment. BitterGrey (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether something is offensive or not is almost certainly irrelevant on wikipedia. If Cantor's opinion is not shared by a large number of people in the relvant fields, then we attribute it as a minority opinion. However, the dearth of sources and research means we must write the page based on what we can find. If Cantor is reliable, then it may have a place - probably if there are few other scholarly sources.

AGF applies to editors, not sources or viewpoints. Sources are parsed by their reliability, viewpoints by their degree of acceptance. If we have trouble finding scholarly sources, then any scholarly source should be cited. If other scholarly sources have criticized Cantor's work, then we juxtapose the two as "Cantor says X, Smith disagrees saying Y". It's not like we have a huge volume of literature to draw upon, which is a large part of the problem. But scholarly always trumps popular. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@WLU, if you'll check, I think you'll find that I'm using AGF properly. I'd like FiachraByrne's thoughts on that aspect of that source. BitterGrey (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no good faith issue in asking that question, I think. I got the chapter from Cantor and I read it all but to be honest I zoned in on the section discussing infantilism as a paraphilia and I didn't really register the section erotic location errors. In my personal opinion while the phrase "infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia" may be unfortunate - even if it is semantically accurate (i.e. to love oneself as a child); although is infantilism directed at the self or outward or both (surely the later?) - and certainly I can appreciate that the theory that infantilism is the result of "misdirection" in erotic targets and that the proper target of erotic attraction should be children would be offensive to someone who is in the AB/DL community. As I think I've said before, I think that researchers of human subjects have responsibilities towards them and that these are not always fulfilled (which is not to say that science should be directed by political correctness but rather that researchers have to be really careful with the public articulation of their positions particularly when they are controversial). I also think that we have to include Cantor et al. as they are a good RS and simply stating that you don't like their theories or find them insulting is insufficient. There are two parts to their chapter which are relevant. 1) Where they give an oversight of the literature in terms of cases of AB. 2) Where they discuss Blanchard et al.'s theory regarding the etiology of infantilism. The first, I think, is less problematic as it's an overview of the literature. The second part is presented as a theory not as fact. It's not accurate to characterise this theory as "fringe" even if it is not mainstream. And, I think, people like Moser have countered it and he should certainly be cited as well in that regard (as WLU (talk · contribs) has stated). We have to report the literature, we can't ignore what we don't like. Cantor has to go in - in fact I'd include almost everything about infantilism from the medical literature.FiachraByrne (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, I find the phrase "Cantor has to go in" disturbing, especially given the topic we first debated. It isn't "if necessary, we'll use it" or "this might be a good reference to support that point", but "Cantor has to go in." It suggests a motivation. Is it possible that I'm misunderstanding you? BitterGrey (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

When I say "Cantor has to go in" what I mean is that there are few enough rs that we can use. His is recent, it's an Oxford publication, and he and his fellow authors are well published in the field. It's an obvious choice. You can't exclude stuff because you don't like it but you can look for sources to include that counter his arguments. As to ulterior motives I don't have any in regard to this or Cantor but I'll give you the background to how I arrived here. In the WPMED project of which I'm a member (although I'm not a doctor I'm doing - trying to do - a PhD on the history of psychiatry and psychiatric patients and this interest is revealed in most of the topics I post on) - there was a discussion about getting people with expertise to join wikipedia as editors. One of the people on the thread referenced Cantor and said something to the effect of "well given the treatment of someone of Cantor's status gets here, why would established academics bother editing". At that point I clicked to view Cantor's talk page and spent an hour or so reading the various exchanges. I might have read something at that time about the whole Bailey controversy as well. I also elected to watch Cantor's talk page. As a result of that I've been involved in three issues relating either directly or indirectly to Cantor. One, some months ago, related to, I think, the proper term to use for sex addiction for a self-help group as whether sexual addiction was a "real", or should I say scientifically established entity was in dispute. I proposed that the article should state that this self-help group defines its members as sex addicts as I thought that was a reasonable work-around to stating it as fact. That was accepted initially by everyone but then it went a bit pear-shaped although I had an interesting exchange with the guy on my talk page. I also posted one or two questions for Cantor on his page (differentiation between addiction and compulsion and something about why peer or self-help groups seek to medicalise their conditions - kind of relevant to this subject actually - which he answered in a civil and informative manner). I became active again on wikipedia recently and when looking at my watch list I saw the debate on Cantor's page about Peggy Kleinplatz. I got involved in that because the whole debate seemed so abundantly stupid as if people were interested in the quality of that article rather than conflict it would have been easy to establish the facts. Also, and as you know, I was honestly disturbed that you sent an email to his colleague that contained some "questionable" statements. That disturbed me because I would never like to see such behaviour directed at myself. This current one arose because, I think, because I was at that point watching the reliable sources page and I had a copy of the DSM when not many other people did. I thought and still think you were wrong in how you used it as a source. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving a detailed justification for my actions there. One of Cantor's admin friends was handing out bans liberally and singlehandedly (in violation of Wikipedia policy.) That admin friend was demanding that I and others not even mention Cantor by name. Obviously, this made the discussion remarkably one-sided. This also prevented me for pointing out that those comments were necessary to explain the email. However, in hindsight they could have been worded more politically.

As for the cause, you missed the step where WLU edit warred here to obscure all references to the DSM. This followed suddenly after the discussion where we first interacted. He clearly hadn't checked the DSM. Up until minutes before the RSN post, he still asserted that infantilism wasn't mentioned in the DSM at all; "I've read them all [the DSM pages cited], paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear."[3]. He was at 3RR here before checking the DSM.

The last time he tried this was in February[4]. That too immediately followed events on another page [5]. This pattern shows a clear motive.

Still, FiachraByrne, I would like to be able to assume that you are not here seeking revenge for Cantor. Statements like "Cantor has to go in" run contrary to that. Especially in light of the quote you added[6]. I had raised an issue with two cases that Cantor is misrepresenting[7]. The source you quoted matches my reading, and contradicts Cantor's. His is a fringe view at best. BitterGrey (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm here because I appear to be stuck here ... I'm trying to write an article on Gottlieb Burckhardt and I also recently made a {{Psychiatry|Portal}}(restoring w/o indent BitterGrey (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

... where have all the psychiatrists gone, incidentally. There seem to have been a few in 2009. Also, I seem to getting sucked into things like RSN on the Falklands ... In regard to Cantor, I don't know what I can say but I have no emotional involvement in seeking "revenge". You've acknowledged at least (I think) that you should have worded that email better and that was my main concern in that regard so from my point of view that is done. In regard to the DSM I'd probably like you to say that you "stretched" that source a tad. Regardless of which, on the question of sources for the article, it would be perverse to exclude Cantor. And excluding him because you don't like him or you've been in conflict with him is not supportable. You can't characterise Cantor or more pertinently Blanchford as fringe. They're cited hither and yon across the field. I would like to see the 1960s articles for myself but, regardless of that, Cantor et al.'s reading of those articles appears to be close to that of Pate and Gabbard. Even if it wasn't you'd still have to include them as they have stature and authority and they actually address paraphilic infantilism and provide literary review. Further, their text is an Oxford imprint. Oxford publications by definition are not fringe even if they are controversial. The bottom line is that if Cantor et al. are added they can't be deleted on any reasonable grounds. It doesn't matter to me in a personal sense that that should be the case but the article requires it. I'm sorry as I'm sure that that is hard to stomach but there are no reasonable grounds for their exclusion. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The 1960's articles are probably available at you university's library, although probably not digitally. I find it useful to be able to access the source, since so many later authors just read their own presumptions upon these cases. I assume you mean Blanchard? As for stature and authority, they were only listed as the most notable researchers (in another field) because Cantor wrote it so[8] while logging in under an undisclosed COI[9]. BitterGrey (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I know my own library and I will get them. Cantor probably shouldn't have put in his own citations to the article. However, he's fairly open about any COI now and from what I can see has voluntarily absented himself from a number of articles where COI could arise. He's also very far from being the only person editing articles in the paraphilia topics with a COI. Anyhow, I don't really want a conversation at the moment about Cantor the wikipedian. If there's a problem with him take a formal action such as arbcom. Also his and his colleagues authority as authors of rs is not determined by a wikipedia entry. Academic reputations are not normally made or lost in a forum such as this, nor should they be. Check their article and citations count [10] [11] [12]. If you want we can RSN it but I there's no reasonable argument for their exclusion. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please check that link again. He was writing himself into the body of an article, "...other researchers, most notably Canadian sexologists James Cantor and Ray Blanchard and their colleagues...". In other places, Cantor has inserted citations to his own work (eg. [13]). In that instance, he was replacing a citation to rival researchers Moser and Kleinplatz with his own. As for arbcom, that might be necessary if he acts up again. So far, the diligence of individuals has managed to keep him in check.

"Confabulation, Memory Deficits, and Frontal Dysfunction" by James Cantor (of Boston University), et. al. doesn't look relevant. Narrowing the search to paraphilic infantilism gives much shorter lists, [14][15][16]. Even then, there don't seem to be any papers on infantilism. For example, Blanchard's article on transsexualism only mentions infantilism once, in an unreferenced list of other paraphilias.

The list includes International Encyclopedia of Sexuality, published by the Kinsey Institute, which looks useful. I had forgotten this one. It states observations, not speculations, and is a free download. It mentions "infantilism is fairly unique to the U.S and is growing in popularity." It also includes some old DPF subscriber stats, and includes some etiological quotes from the DPF founder. BitterGrey (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cantor is a reliable source, the fact that he may have inserted it in violation of COI guidelines doesn't preclude other editors from citing it. Discussing the actions of another editor on another page wastes time and bandwidth. As non-COI editors, there are no policies or guidelines preventing any of us from adding an accurate summary of his work.

What page(s) mention infantilism in the Kinsey encyclopedia? The search feature doesn't work on that PDF. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, found it. Pages 1248-9/30-31 of the PDF. There's some useful stuff that could be integrated in the history section and if necessary some general descriptive stuff. However, it's mostly a description of a single city and set of practitioners, so it can't really be used for general statements. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, given the events that preceded your both being here, and especially all the recent comments about what "must go in," you should respect the policies that apply to editors with a conflict of interest here, especially regarding Cantor. Foibles like the recent one at ANI[17] further bring your (plural) neutrality into question. I should point out that ANI is not a good place to make foibles like that.

As for the Kinsey encyclopedia, the search function works fine for me. BitterGrey (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a conflict of interest in citing Cantor. I will cite applicable parts of his work once the page is unlocked.

Does infantilism appear anywhere else in the Kinsesy source but those two pages? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No conditions, no qualifications, just "I will cite..." Even though he shows no indication of having seen a single infantilist, hasn't written a single paper on infantilism, and at best, takes artistic liberties with his sources. And you are asking us to believe that you are unbiased in this regards.BitterGrey (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cantor, Blanchard, Barbaree are experts on the paraphilias. In fact, you don't have to rely on our judgement for that because it is confirmed by the fact that they were chosen to write the chapter on the paraphilias for the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology. That alone establishes their credentials. Added to that Blanchard is Chairing the paraphilia sub-working group on paraphilias for the DSM 5 and his articles have been cited more than 1800 times. Cantor is an editor of a journal (Sexual Abuse) in the field and sits on numerous editorial boards of journals in the field (Journal of Sexual Aggression, The Journal of Sex Research, and Archives of Sexual Behavior). Barbaree has also published widely. There's no question they'd easily pass an RSN. They're hardly the only source to be included in the article but I have yet to see any reasonable grounds for their exclusion. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

One does not need to be or have the subject of a page to write about it. In fact, that can arguably be a conflict of interest and since wikipedia is not therapy, it is important to ensure one's personal beliefs do not interfere with writing the encyclopedia. The obvious reason, and it's frankly amazing to me that I have to mention it, is that an individuals' experience may not be characteristic or representative, or they may be motivated to distort their experience for a variety of reasons. If a behaviour is genuinely representative of the relevant community at large, then it should be easy to find a reference to substantiate this. If no such reference can be found, then that is at least suggestive that the editor in question may not be accurately describing the overall community. Irrespective, Wikipedia requires text can be verified by reliable sources, in principle by any editor reviewing the source text. That text must be summarized accurately and not have undue weight placed on it. This is determined by reference to sources, quality of the source, weight within the scholarly community, not by the personal experiences of an editor. I will cite Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree because it is an obviously reliable source written by experts published by a respected scholarly publishing house. I will do so accurately and will listen if it is suggested I am mis-representing the source. In other words, I will edit as I always do. There is no reason to exclude the source and it's a waste of time to discuss what will ultimately be a small number of short citations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, those comments could only establish _general_ reliability. While I question whether they are generally reliable, you also must make a case for _specific relevance_. DSM 4TR has all the characteristics of general reliability, much more so that the ones you are pushing, but you argued against the DSM exclusion anyway.

WLU, comments from you and FiachraByrne such as "I will cite Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree,..." reinforce the knowtion that pushing these sources upon Wikipedia was your primary motivation all along. What else would explain your double standards? BitterGrey (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM is reliable. It's just irrelevant bar a single sentence. That's been the central point of numerous editors. Underline can be added by enclosing text between <u></u> tags, but don't use it in actual articles. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, the basis for your argument argument against the DSM is that there is one sentence that specifically mentions infantilism. One source you are arguing for has zero sentences that mention infantilism. How is this not a double standard? BitterGrey (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Any chance we can set the CAMH-pushing aside and make some progress toward a consensus about this item? BitterGrey (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

vii) Infantilism and diaper fetishism and should not be confused with basic paraphilias

Here, a clearer, alternate wording should be able to resolve the problem. The whole sentence was "Many published cases are only tangentially related[14][15][16][17] to infantilism and diaper fetishism and should not be confused with the basic paraphilias.[6]" BitterGrey (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

14)Pandita-Gunawardena, R (1990). "Paraphilic infantilism. A rare case of fetishistic behaviour". The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. 157: 767–70. doi:10.1192/bjp.157.5.767. PMID 2279218. ("He suggested that the onset of this disorder was when he was six years old, following an injury when he was kicked in the head by a horse; he was in a coma for six months.")

15)Mitchell, W; Falconer, MA; Hill, D (1954). "Epilepsy with fetishism relieved by temporal lobectomy". Lancet. 267 (6839): 626–30. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(54)90404-3. PMID 13202455. ("The patient would stare at the [safety] pin for a minute and then appear glassy-eyed. Next he would make a humming noise for a few seconds and for a few further seconds [make] sucking movements with his lips. Finally he stood immoble and unresponsive for two minutes. Recovery was immediate. Just before some attacks, his right pupil would dilate.")

16)Croarkin, P.; Nam, T; Waldrep, D (2004). "Comment on Adult Baby Syndrome". American Journal of Psychiatry. 161 (11): 2141. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.161.11.2141-a. PMID 15514436. ("This patient had a higher level of psychiatric morbidity than the patient of Drs. Pate and Gabbard, and some clinicians involved felt that his symptoms were best explained by an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) spectrum illness.")

<original research>Survey data suggests that OCD is over-represented among AB/DLs, but still only present in a minority. The Wikipedia article has not been updated to reflect this. </original research>

17) Lehne, GK (2000). "The First Case of Paraphilia Treated with Depo-Provera: 40-Year Outcome". Journal of Sex Education and Therapy. 25 (4): 213–220. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) (Authors claim "mutation" of the paraphilia cannot be attributed to the unprecedented hormonal treatment they prescribed. A 65 year old has been in consultation with a sexologist for 40 years. He started crossdressing at 10, and had sexual contact with son at 30. The son was 6. After treatment with Depo-Provera, he resumed crossdressing at 36. He had a "paraphilic relapse" at 46. Among others, he had a new interest in infantilism. )

6) American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (IV-TR ed.). American Psychiatric Pub. pp. 568. ISBN 0890420254. ( DSM, the "differential diagnosis" section. "A paraphilia must be distinguished from the nonpathological use of sexual fantasies..." Various non-paraphilic pathologies are mentioned in the second paragraph. )

PROPOSED/ALTERNATE WORDINGS:

"Many published cases are only tangentially related (e.g. [14][15][16][17]) to infantilism and diaper fetishism, and these cases should not be confused with cases of infantilism and diaper fetishism.[6]" BitterGrey (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You would need a secondary source describing those citations as only tangentially related to infantilism and diaper fetishism. Rightly or wrongly, I'd imagine most of these sources are included in any literature review of the subject and should be include in the treatment of this wiki article. Also, before endorsing such a sentence, we'd have to see the sources you're seeking to characterise as tangential to the topic. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've pasted in the refs from the article, and modified the above alternate wording to make it more clear that they are examples. Feel free to propose alternate wordings.BitterGrey (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Citing things as examples is original research. Pate & Goddard summarizes the literature as of 2003 which is a much, much better source and approach to include in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to propose an alternate wording? BitterGrey (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"A 2002 case report by psychiatrists Jennifer Pate and Glen Goddard found little research on the topic, and they suggested the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders lacked a category that captured their patient's disorder." Remove the current "example" citations as original research. If we can't use the citation to say something general about paraphilic infantilism then we shouldn't be citing individual cases that discuss it. Pate & Goddard would also be useful to give general facts and information. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

pg 1936: "Mr. A’s statement that he wanted someone to make him be a baby evokes images of the sadomasochistic scenarios enacted by a dominatrix and her clients." infantilism was NOT rejected because of a lack of masochsim

pg 1932: "Unusual behaviors may escape psychiatric classification if they do not create subjective distress, do not distress others, and do not involve functional impairments or legal problems. Entire subcultures related to these behaviors may exist outside of the awareness of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals." That is, no distress or impairment.

DSM pg 568 "Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment..."

Obviously, paraphilia was rejected because Criterion B (distress or impairment) was not met, in accordance with the DSM, not in exception to it. (To head off the paraphilia NOS axe, I'll point out that pg 568 is in the general paraphilias section, and so applies to NOS as well.) I'll add this ref to the relevant point above.

To rephrase the point that we are discussing: Many Google scholar searches will turn up results that discuss cases of epilepsy, OCD, etc,. These should not be confused with infantilism or diaper fetishism. Would it be helpful if I added descriptions to the four references? I have copies and so don't know if they are in Google books. BitterGrey (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the issue is here. Personally, having provided as many general statements as possible I think it would be good to go into the individual cases whether you consider them tangential or not. The concept that will deal with epilepsy or OCD is comorbidity. There's no indication in the literature that epilepsy or OCD is connected to this paraphilia but when it's turned up clinically it's often been in the context of other disorders.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I've been misreading things a bit here. The headings are the proposed sentences. OK. I don't think you can say this. The DSM instances it as a subtype of Masochism. There's probably a source that describes diaper lovers as fetishists. If that's the case these two could be classified as subtypes of the basic paraphilias (or am I missing something?). Of course, other sources refer to infantilism as a distinct paraphilia - classified as Paraphilia NOS. Looks to me that the sources won't allow us to make that statement. We need a more complicated statement to reflect the "reality" as contained in the sources.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, "basic paraphilias" was written to avoid using "infantilism and diaper fetishism" again in the sentence. The sentence could clearly be worded better. Any suggestions for isolating the "infantilism isn't epilepsy" (the intended point, which line up pretty well with your previous post) from the "infantilism isn't masochism" issue? BitterGrey (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm wrong on a point above. Infantilism has been treated as a paraphilia (e.g. Pate and Gabbard (2003)) and as connected to OCD (Croarkin, Nam,and Waldrep (2004)). Moreover Dickey (2006) has “autohebepedophilic dysphoria” (Blanchard school).

I think the most accurate statement I've read so far on the subject from the medical literature is that offered by Evcimen and Gratz: Adult Baby Syndrome is a recently described symptom cluster, which has not yet become part of any official psychiatric classification system. There have been only a fewcase reports in the literature,which presented either as a paraphilia or an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) (Croarkin, Nam, & Waldrep, 2004; Dinello, 1967;Malitz, 1966; Pate & Gabbard, 2003; Tuchman & Lachman, 1964). These patients shared the common symptoms of wearing diapers, drinking milk out of a bottle, eating baby food, and wanting to become a baby. DOI: 10.1007/s10508-005-9002-6

What this whole discussion has made clear to me is that: 1) the "symptoms" or behaviours of infantilism or AB/DL are well described in the literature. 2) there is no consensus as to how categorise infantilism or AB/DL. 3) we shouldn't seek to present the medical literature as having reached consensus when none exists.FiachraByrne (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One benefit to having separate terminology for the condition and the population is that we can express some otherwise troublesome points. The paraphilic conditions may have a set of symptoms or diagnostic criteria. There might be some hope of documenting these. The AB/DLs might try new things and develop new interests at any time. The result being more diverse and dynamic.

Thanks for the quote, by the way. It is good to know I'm not alone in asserting that some regressive aspects were mentioned by Malitz and Tuchman & Lachman, contrary to what one other author claims in his book[18]. BitterGrey (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Cantor et al. are not alone in their characterisation. Gabbard and Pate (well Gabbard actually) follow much the same interpretation (PMID:14594737) (p. 1934):

Malitz (1) reported a case of a 20-year-old college student who was arrested by police for breaking into a house. He reported that the reason he broke into the house was because of a compulsion to wear diapers and defecate in them. Orgasm regularly accompanied defecation, even if he did not masturbate. He knew that the house in which he was caught would have diapers in it since there was a baby in the house. The patient also liked to wear rubber pants over the diaper. The patient did not, however, think of himself as a baby.

Tuchman and Lachman (2) reported on another patient with legal problems, in this case, for molesting his 4- and 6-year-old daughters. He would wear rubber pants over his diaper and enjoyed urinating and masturbating in it. This patient made no statement suggesting that he wanted to be a baby.

These two cases were both characterized as antisocial behavior, with a predominant emphasis on the fetishistic or sexual aspects of wearing diapers and rubber pants. Unlike Mr. A, neither patient had all of the characteristics of adult baby syndrome.

FiachraByrne (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Technically, they do differ. Malitz reported his patient's "...diaper perversion appeared to symbolize a regression to infancy in order to reclaim the attention and love of his mother and undo his displacement in her affections by his sister's birth." That is, there was a desire to be infantile expressed, but the patient didn't say that he thought of himself as a baby. Similarly, Tuchman & Lachman report a "...regressive quality and symbolism..." but not a statement of wanting to be a baby. Both in marked contrast to Pate's patient.

In practice, I'm less concerned about Pate's grounding for two reasons. 1) Most of the article focuses on one patient, so less of it hinges on the literature survey. 2) Deconstructing Pate's paper gives a title (correctly attributed to an episode of "ER") and a patient who didn't meet Criterion B so correctly wasn't diagnosed with a paraphilia. There was no new and fringey discovery that required much defending. I love the Indiana Jones quote. BitterGrey (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Some articles that turn up in infantilism literature surveys are actually cases of other conditions (e.g. epilepsy[15]), or have other atypical factors (e.g. severe head injuries[14], hormonal treatement[17], etc.). The DSM includes some guidelines for differential diagnoses[6]."

How about this alternative? BitterGrey (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This analyzes the literature to come up with a novel conclusion, making it original research. It's not saying "X says this about paraphilic infantilism^[1]", it's saying "X says this about paraphilic infantilism^[1] and it is wrong because of Y^{[citation needed]}." If there is a source that makes this point, it would be a valuable addition. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a response to the reworded proposal? 15 explicitly describes itself as a case of epilepsy, even in the title, but does not mention anything that might be considered a conventional infantilism or diaper fetish, just that a safety (diaper) pin triggers the epileptic siezures. 14 explicitly mentions the severe head injury (""kicked in the head by a horse; he was in a coma for six months."). 17 is equally explicit, even mentioning "Depo-Provera" in the title. Finally, the section cited to support "the DSM includes some guidelines for differential diagnoses" is titled "Differential Diagnosis." The word "guideline" is not explicitly used and is negotiable. I'd be OK with rules, generalizations, examples, etc...

Also in light of the recent argument to use a paper on "masochistic gynaephiles" as a ref on infantilism, WLU's comment seems like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. BitterGrey (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You may want to note that in this edit, I hid the text where it states that most cases are only tangentially related. If Mitchell et al. 1954 is about epilepsy, not infantilism, it should simply be removed. Pandita-Gunawardena is cited in the case studies section right now, and I'd rather remove it since it's again about a single case study. Freund & Blanchard is a different matter since it talks about several case studies and offers a hypothesis. Mitchell is from 1954 and I don't have a copy so can't comment concretely but since it's a very old case study that I don't have a copy of, I'm reluctant to cite it. Croarkin et al. 2004 is a letter to the editor, it might work as a short attributed opinion. Lehne & Money 2000 is another case study and its use also depends. It always depends on the source, context and summary. But no matter what, the source makes the point, editorializing is never appropriate. Wikipedia editors decide what sources to use and how to use them, they do not comment or criticize. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, whether you have access to the references or not is irrelevant, except that modifying or removing citations to sources you haven't checked is a violation of WP:AGF. Basically, it involves the assumption that the citing editor was being careless, deceptive, or both. This demonstration of ill will sets up a negative chain reaction by crippling other editors' ability to rightly AGF in you. For example, we had two separate edit wars regarding the DSM BEFORE you actually checked the DSM. Supporting the before-version-of-WLU based on AGF would mean opposing the after-version-of-WLU. This can spiral out of control. Do not modify citations you have not checked yourself. It is an action of bad faith, rooted in the assumption that some prior editor previously acted in bad faith. BitterGrey (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

iv) Desires and tastes of paraphilic infantilists vary around common themes of diapers and babyhood

• A basic paraphrase of the DSM definition

1. DSM pg 572 "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism')."
2. Different loving: the world of sexual dominance and submission Gloria G. Brame, William Brame, William D. Brame, Jon Jacobs, pg 138 "infantilism is about losing control in a very primal manner."
3. Different loving: the world of sexual dominance and submission Gloria G. Brame, William Brame, William D. Brame, Jon Jacobs, pg 140 "while humiliation is a common interest, some adult babies wish to experience infancy without such D&S elements as humiliation, coercion, or punishment. Infantilists usually prefer gentle, teasing, nurturing experiences." (Although given that this book focuses mainly on D&S, the author might emphasize the contrasts with D&S.)
4. Anatomy of masochism By June Rathbone pg 114 - not sure if this ref is useful. The author emphasizes self-defeating behaviors, immaturity, lack of capability and control in a masochistic context, but doesn't seem to mention diapers.
5. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology, Volume 3 By Irving B. Weiner, W. Edward Craighead pg 968 - "Where sadomasochism finds no outlet in sexual activity, it is likely to spill over from sexuality into personality in the form of rigidity, infantilism, hypocrisy, and passivity."-ditto.
6. Secrets of a Phone Sex Operator By Stacey Weiss p38 "ABDL-adult baby/diaper lover " "adult babies are by far my favorite callers. They are just so sweet and innocent. They want to pretend to the a baby and just be coddled, pampered, and really loved. They want to be held and have their diaper changed...Sometimes they do want to be played with sexually, but 80 percent of the time they don't. ...I'm not talking to them as if I'm molesting a child; I'm talking to them as if I'm talking to a grown man who wants to be a baby."
7. Chicago 1992: The Transcendent Function: Individual and Collective Aspects By Mary Ann Mattoon pg 207 "the obsession is the helpless child, alone in a crib or playpen, diapers wet or soiled, waiting and desiring to be bathed, held, loved, stroked, kissed, fondled. The fixation then moves to a literalizing and physicalizing. The adult then becomes a child, discarding adult clothing for diapers, plastic pants, made-to-order infant clothing."
8. Sex Crimes: Patterns and Behavior By Stephen T. Holmes, Ronald M. Holmes pg 81 - "Some adults are interested in sexual play in which they pretend to be helpless infants."

Should we reword, pass, or expand with additional references?

I think that that is fine. As a matter of interest, in your personal opinion which of these characterisations do you find most accurate?FiachraByrne (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The third citation would tailor well with the current use of the DSM and give a good contrast between paraphilic infantilists and masochists. I wouldn't cite any of the others - too much personal experience in dubiously reliable sources. Mattoon is far too focussed on a single, esoteric interpretation as well as a single case. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Short answer: I used "desires for diapers and/or babyhood" in the surveys, because a phrase was necessary to write the questions.

Long answer: There is a trade-off between detail and complexity. Since tastes vary, the more detailed a description is, the more of the population it will exclude. <original research> For example, not even liking diapers are a universal. </original research> A more complicated description can be more powerful, but at the obvious cost of being complicated. This also includes a risk of being misunderstood. For example, I'm told that masochists might experience being in bondage as liberating in a way. I can understand how, but also understand that it is difficult to convey to others. Processing the survey data gave me a renewed respect for the DSM's approach of aiming for one "mode" point roughly in the middle of the scatter, and describing it briefly.

Right answer: None, but the DSM is in the most libraries.BitterGrey (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So are we all OK with using this point, without rewording, with refs 1-3? BitterGrey (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

iii) Neither includes a sexual preference for children

• Like leukemia and the ability to communicate with alien worlds, a sexual preference for children is not included among the symptoms of infantilism or diaper fetishism. The key difference is that it is not common to confuse infantilism or diaper fetishism with leukemia or the ability to communicate with alien worlds. (Complicating this further is that FiachraByrne's point about criminal subsamples is correct. Many sexologists have only been able to draw from the prison and morgue populations. This greatly distorted observations, and might be part of the reason why this point is important. Some psychiatrists have also been able to draw upon patients institutionalized for other reasons, but the association with epilepsy doesn't come up on talk shows as much as the association with pedophilia.)

1. DSM pg 572-573 (masochism section)
2. DSM pg 569-570 (fetishism section)
3. Chicago 1992: The Transcendent Function: Individual and Collective Aspects By Mary Ann Mattoon, pg 207 "these individuals are not pedophiliacs nor are they interested in sexualizing relationships with children." (pg 205 uses both "infantilism" and "adult baby", medical source)
4. Different loving: the world of sexual dominance and submission Gloria G. Brame, William Brame, William D. Brame, Jon Jacobs, pg 137 "Although infantilists are exclusively adults who roleplay with other adults, this interest is commonly mistaken for pedophilia. In fact, infantilists who recognize and accept their sexuality-and its possible roots in infantile trauma-tend to be acutely protective of real children."
5. Sex Crimes: Patterns and Behavior By Stephen T. Holmes, Ronald M. Holmes, pg 81 - "This form of paraphilia should not be confused with any form of sexual child abuse, pedophilia, incest, or other forms of child molestation."

Should we reword, pass, or expand with additional references?

Statement is fine. I'd scratch the two DSM references as they do not address this issue.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Scratch the DSM, Ardnt already sources the "common confusion", this should be expanded with the above citations to more clearly state that the two are unrelated. I wouldn't necessarily include the "acutely protective of real children" but would include a mention that it's exclusively adults with adults. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the DSM refs would be the Nationally recognized authority where the symptoms would be defined, I think they should be included. BitterGrey (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but as has been discussed at length, the DSM does not discuss infantilism as a separate paraphilia so it's use is quite restricted. There's no support for citing the DSM beyond it's reference to a behaviour of masochists. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevance is still there, whether the definition is considered a separate paraphilia or a sub-category of masochism. The DSM is still where most people will look to see what infantilism is and is not (short of Wikipedia, that is).BitterGrey (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if that is where most people would look to find out about it. And it's not really relevant because the DSM makes no general statement applicable to all paraphilias in regard to attraction to children.

The crux of the matter for me, and all other issues aside, the problem is in using a source, any source, incorrectly: that is where you cite it to support statements that the source does not make. The DSM in the pages you cite and elsewhere does not support the statement. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/FiarchraByrne. The DSM doesn't verify infantilism as a sub-category of masochism. Other sources may, and we can summarize it as a section specifically discussing masochism if we can find those sources. But we can't use the DSM to state infantilism is part of masochism. There does not appear to be a separate paraphilia of "infantilism" in the DSM. This doesn't surprise me, since the sexual fixations are different - for infantilists it is being treated and coddled like an infant; for masochists it is the humiliation of being forced to be treated like a baby. One is about being cared for, the other is about being humiliated. Though there is definitely blurry issues, I think there are sources that make this clear. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused here. I would have thought that Sexual Masochism was the only instance where "infantilism" is mentioned. That may be cohere or contradict the actual reality of infantilism but as far as the DSM is concerned that is the directly cited instance and there it most definitely is treated as part of the larger category of SM.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Infantilism is only mentioned as a behaviour of masochists in the DSM, but not as a subtype of masochism. This is my reading of the text and I had thought your interpretation was the same but perhaps I mis-interpreted. Other sources discuss the muddling of masochism and infantilism ([19]) which can be mentioned in the main page, but the DSM itself does not, in my opinion, classify infantilism as a subtype. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 05:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In the DSM, infantilism only appears as a sub-type of sexual masochism. Notably, unlike the behaviors described, which are described with verbs, infantilism is defined with a specific noun: infantilism. BitterGrey (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a behaviour masochists engage in, or more accurately, have "forced" on them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU asked me to clarify my position on this on my talk page. The exchange is here. I don't think the sources support its characterisation as a subtype of masochism. It is referred to as a 'form' of or a 'variation' of it.FiachraByrne (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Since we are discussing this article's article topic, we should be discussing it here. Additionally, I've seen personal talk pages abused to exclude people from conversations too often. For example, last time I posted to WLU's talk page, he deleted it withe the note "I can just delete this without reading it". BitterGrey (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

FiachraByrne, I was fine with your suggestion of subtype[20] and adapted a proposed text accordingly, I would also be OK with "form" or "variation." However, unless we have some definite contrast between subtype/form/variation, it might not be worth debating.BitterGrey (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably a distinction without difference (at least no difference evident to me; can anyone enlighten me on this). However, if the term subtype is not used in the sources I'd prefer something like "form" or "variation". Obviously all this applies only insofar as the DSM discusses infantilism. We also have infantilism as a distinct paraphilia, as a form of OCD and in one instance related to OCD. Also, in reference to a comment on my talk page from WLU, I'd just like to say that, at least in terms of the medical literature, we shouldn't be trying to define what paraphilic infantilism is; rather we should be trying to describe in the first instance how the medical or other rs literature has attempted to define it. If there are contraditions and disagreements in that literature, and they're obviously is, we should just report it and leave at that.FiachraByrne (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, am I fooling myself or are we approaching some kind of consensus on things?

We can hope. There does seem to be some progress, as long as the promotion of certain related authors and the rejection of the DSM that the promotion of those authors requires isn't being discussed. BitterGrey (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My draft on masochism below uses a large number of direct quotes as I can't think of a good way to summarize such brief mentions and I think the quotes are themselves fairly clear. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that text is highly obscure, and might be read as making the exact opposite point of the one we are discussing here. This point still should be made. It seems-well supported. The only disagreement seems to be whether to cite the DSM or not. BitterGrey (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM shouldn't be cited, there are other sources that verify this point adequately. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But do you agree that this is a worthwhile and supported point? BitterGrey (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was every any effort to remove the distinction between pedophilia and infantilism. The page's current discussion of pedophilia is weak and sourced to a 45-year-old publication, it needs to be expanded and the referencing improved. Brame's Different loving is a weak source to cite. However, Holmes & Holmes Sex crimes is by a good publisher and an adequate source, and my library has a copy. Freund and Blanchard also make the point with greater detail that would be valuable. The DSM, of course, should not be cited for this point. Pages follow the sources, we don't use sources to justify pre-existing ideas. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you brought up motivations, the migration of past arguments is consistent with an intent to remove references to DSM to make way for references from CAMH authors (including Freund and Blanchard), who are pushing the fringe theory that infantilism as a type of pedophilia. This is in opposition the the DSM, which categorizes it as a type of masochism. So indirectly, yes, there was not only an effort to remove the distinction, but to group together.

Even if we don't consider motivations, the amount of effort dedicated to advocating CAMH sources above and below clearly show that there was substantial effort, and the effects of that effort is to promote CAMH over DSM and to remove the distinction. BitterGrey (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The one source I have written by Cantor discussing infantilism doesn't connect it with pedophilia. Freund & Blanchard explicitly states that the sexual focus is only superficially similar and discusses what distinguishes a pedophile from an infantilist (which they term masochistic gynaephile). You're arguing a straw man here since I don't think anyone has advocated for a statement equating pedophilia with infantilism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

@WLU. Agreed and if included these sources should be used judiciously to avoid such a misreading. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Cantor: "They [Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism ... as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." p531. So yes, WLU, it does. Furthermore, Cantor's reading of Freund and Blanchard is at odds with WLU's reading, so one or both of them isn't right. BitterGrey (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Given "an autoerotic form of pedophilia" is a fairly loaded term that seems to imply, to the uneducated reader, that infantilists are pedophiles, I'd summarize that as "Freund and Blanchard theorize that infantilism is an erotic attraction to the idea of the self being an infant". Technically speaking it is correct, but the proper way to summarize F&B/Cantor's discussion of this topic is still to distinguish between pedophiles (attracted to children) and infantilists (attracted to the idea of themselves being children). Bittergrey's point underscores the importance of citing Cantor, Freund and Blanchard in the article, and fortunately Cantor makes the difference even clearer. In fact, given this fact I would argue we don't need Fruend and Blanchard at all, simply Cantor's summary of them - a secondary source a primary source. Excellent. Given Cantor's summary, can anyone else see a reason to cite F&B? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see my point above about checking sources[21]. This foible adds Cantor to the growing list of sources that WLU has argued about at length but was not familiar with. That the direction WLU is pushing in hasn't changed, even though the claimed motivation has been reversed, suggests that there is a true motivation independent of his claimed motivation. This is true both of his downplay of the DSM and promotion of the CAMH fringe viewpoint. WLU, if you would tell us what you really want, perhaps we can find a mutually acceptable compromise.

I agree that pedophilia is an emotionally loaded term, but it is the term Cantor, Freund, and Blanchard use. Watering down their fringe view to something less fringey (that they didn't write) misrepresents the source. BitterGrey (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We should also note that per MOS, "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.". One facility represented in two sources is not "widely used." BitterGrey (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering the point I'm going to make with this source (just like I was going to make with Freund and Blanchard) is that infantilists are not pedophiles, I'm not sure who you are arguing with and why. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Bittergrey has a point and we shouldn't seek to ameliorate the hypothesis of Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree on infantilism? Just note it in the text and move on? If every inclusion or exclusion is going to be so contentious we should keep it to the simplest paraphrasing of whatever sources we have and not worry about impact. There's no point going in here with a preferred version of the article or AB/DL that will emerge. Just report the sources in the simplest terms possible.FiachraByrne (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

To summarize my points regarding the CAMH sources:

1. Rewording sources that state infantilism is a type of pedophilia to say something other than that would be to misrepresent the source. However, per the manual of style, using a value-laden term such as pedophilia should only be done if there is broad support. Only one facility, represented in only two sources, is not broad support. (If we accept WLU's initial reading of F&B as correct, then it would be only one source, and a mistaken one at that.) Thus we should not cite either F&B or C with respect to pedophilia.
2. F&B is written around new groupings defined by neologisms such as "masochistic gynaephiles". This makes using it at all problematic. None of these groupings can be reasonably mapped to infantilists. For example, equating infantilists with "masochistic gynaephiles" would require all infantilists to be either heterosexual males or homosexual females, since gynephilia is the love of women. Creating such mappings ourselves would be an act of original research.
3. F&B has serous flaws in terms of internal consistency. If erotic target location errors existed in pedophilic masochistic gynaephiles, they would envision themselves as the target of pedophilic gynaephilia; little girls. (pedo- child, gyne- female). The examples given either envisioned themselves as boys or were not specified. None of the examples cited supported the hypothesis being forwarded. Since this is a primary source, internal consistency is all we can evaluate it against.
4. F&B does not mention the word "infantilism" at all. This was the rationale given for stripping away most of the DSM refs.
5. C&B presents interpretations of the primary sources that deviates from those of multiple Wikipedians. Above we saw that WLU's reading of F&B[22] differed from Cantor's[23] by nearly a hundred-and-eighty-degrees. I've challenged Cantor on his reading for Malitz, Tuchman, and Lachman[24][25], and he has yet to do anything more than comment about my typography[26]. The issue of Malitz had come up previously[27]. A secondary source that doesn't reliably summarize the primary sources has no value.
6. C&B presents few relevant sources not already summarized by Pate's article. (Exceptions include Stekel, who's book on psychosexual infantilism is already cited in the article, Bethell, and F&B) Pate covers most of the same material, but does so without fringe theories. Pate, in contrast to FB&C has been free of conflict. He's been cited in this article for years. BitterGrey (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the page should point out that paraphilic infantilism is absolutely not pedophilia. I've made that point myself several times.

Regarding your point about "broad support within the sources", there are so few sources, we can pretty much represent all that present secondary conclusions. I've yet to see a scholarly source that discusses another scholarly source to criticize it. This topic appears to be pretty far below the radar of most researchers in the area.

Citing Freund & Blanchard is unnecessary because Cantor makes their points for us. Cantor will be very helpful. It doesn't matter if wikipedians agree with a source (also, I only see one disagreeing with him, myself and Fiarcha quite willing to cite him) the important thing is reliability and weight. There are so few scholarly sources, all can be cited. Your claim that Cantor doesn't reliably cite F&B doesn't hold water in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "paraphilic infantilism is absolutely not pedophilia," C, F&B contain a fringe view contrary to this point.

Re: "so few sources" MOS is specific that value laden words such as pedophilia should not be used if supported only by few sources.

Re: "I only see one disagreeing with him": "Freund & Blanchard explicitly states that the sexual focus is only superficially similar and discusses what distinguishes a pedophile from an infantilist (which they term masochistic gynaephile)." WLU[28], when he thought "Cantor ... doesn't connect it with pedophilia". In truth Cantor writes "They [Freund and Blanchard] interpreted infantilism ... as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." p531. So yes, you did disagree with them.

Re: infantilist="masochistic gynaephile": This includes the assertion that all male infantilists are heterosexual, that no homosexual or bisexual infantilists exist. It appears that only the one paper, when used in wp:synthesis, asserts this. WLU, do you believe that all male infantilists are necessarily heterosexual? BitterGrey (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Also re: infantilist="masochistic gynaephile": F&B discuss multiple dissimilar groups. C&B mentions F&B discussing infantilism, but doesn't mention which group. WLU, what is your basis for asserting that "masochistic gynaephile" is the group C&B mentioned F&B discussing as infantilists?

Re: secondary source: Regarding the fringe theories such as "infantilism [is] an autoerotic form of pedophilia", they only appear in two papers, both written by Blanchard and colleagues at CAMH. The essay Secondary_does_not_mean_independent discusses how a first party can produce a secondary source thought meta-analysis of multiple primary sources. Since only one primary source is given, the Cantor/Blanchard/Barbaree source is not secondary.BitterGrey (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine

Is there a consensus for inclusion in WikiProject medicine? It will reduce the scope of the article, and exclude many of the sources being discussed. BitterGrey (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• oppose - Having been with the article since the last time it was within WikiProject medicine, I think that it unnecessarily limits the scope of the article. BitterGrey (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I should have talked about this before doing it. I'll revert it now until we can establish consensus.

• support as - I've done this really just for categorisation purposes as it would seem I'm the only person on wikipedia at the moment adding wp-med box for psychiatry; from my point of view it just adds it to a list of articles and gives it an importance and class rating. There's no intention to use this box as a means of imposing a Medical manual of style (which is only a recommendation anyway). Also, you've used a medical term 'paraphilia' and we are using a lot of medical sources. It falls within medicine and psychiatry undoubtedly but not exclusively so. FiachraByrne (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that WP:med implies not just a different style guide, but a different standard for RSs:WP:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles). In particular, I seem to recall (Dr.) Brame's book being removed for this reason, although that was roughly half a decade ago. BitterGrey (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• oppose - wikiprojects do not reduce the scope of articles, they merely categorize them. MEDRS applies to medical claims in general, and do not apply to whole articles. Scholarly sources are always given more weight than popular.

However, I don't see paraphilic infantilism as a medical condition as it misses the "clinically significant distress" necessary for a diagnosis (I realize the page name incorporates "paraphilia" which more or less directly implies distress, but I would suggest renaming the page and including a section on medical/psychiatric aspects rather than including it). Most of the case studies, the majority of the medical literature I've seen to date, are complicated and I can't see much that can be generalized; I've yet to see anything that says "most people with paraphilic infantilism have comorbid disorders". I would suggest the psychology wikiproject might apply but sexology should definitely remain. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Fantasies, behaviors, or objects are paraphilic only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment...." pg 568, DSM. The DSM clearly states that without distress or impairment, it is not a paraphilia. This is true no matter how much you wish to disregard or relegate the DSM in favor of authors whom are not in line with it. It is the APA's consensus document, defining Nationally what a paraphilia ia. Thus paraphilic infantilism involves clinically significant distress or impairment. Dr. Pate's patient, for example, did not have clinically significant distress or impairment, and so was not diagnosed with paraphilic infantilism. BitterGrey (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In which case this page should only be about infantalism as a mental illness and the sexual fetish is a different page. Or, as I suggest above, the page is moved to a title that lacks reference to paraphilia and discussion of infantilism as a mental illness is a minor subsection. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Masochism draft

I've created a draft of a separate section on masochism based on some sources FiachraByrne listed on his/her talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Masochism

The DSM states that masochists may have a "...desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers" and describes this as "infantilism"DSM572 and The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry describes infantilism as a variation of sexual masochism. Sexologist John Money, in his book Lovemaps describes paraphilic infantilism as a possible "...adjunctive to masochistic discipline and humiliation."Lovemaps259. Psychologists D. Richard Laws and William O'Donohue state that "Although infantilism is classified as a sexual masochism in the DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR, it is questionable whether the criteria for sexual masochism are always met. For example, if the infantile role playing does not involve feelings of humiliation and suffering, then the diagnosis of sexual masochism would not be appropriate and a diagnosis of infantilism as a paraphilia [not otherwise specified] is warranted."Laws&O'Donohue407 In a discussion of several case studies of adult males who fantasized about being infants, psychiatrists Kurt Freund and Ray Blanchard made

James Cantor, Ray Blanchard and Howard Barbaree in the Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology classify infantilism as an erotic identity disorder, in which the sexual fantasies of infantilists are focused an altered image of themselves as an infant rather than a partner or object.Cantoretal2009 Blanchard and Kurt Freund discuss a series of case studies in which they make a distinction between pedophiles who imagined themselves as young children because "...this imagery increases the subject's similarity to the sexual object (children)" while what they termed "masochistic gynaephiles" (whom Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree refer to as infantilists) would imagine they were children to increase the power difference between their preferred sexual object of adult women spanking and scolding them. Freund and Blanchard make a similar distinction regarding the use of diapers, with pedophiles wearing them due to their association with children while masochistic gynaephiles associate them with the "role of the shamed, defenceless, punished little boy."Freund&Blanchard

Discussion

I'd prefer to be able to discuss your intended points individually, WLU. Overall, I'd need to oppose it since it is largely about pedophilia. Pedophilia is 302.2 and infantilism is a type/subtype/... of 302.83. They are different. It also severely lacks readability and fails to explain a number of loose ends. For example, why does "masochistic gynaephile" require a neologism, other than an author whom you are connected with can't claim to have coined 'male heterosexual masochist?' We might be able to use some parts, but we would need to discuss those parts individually, as we are discussing the other changes.BitterGrey (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Freund and Blanchard summary is pretty long but because it makes a point of distinguishing between pedophilia and infantilism it's very much worth including. It could probably use some reworking (possibly split to a different section) but the text is quite specific and thus incorporates valuable detail that is grammatically difficult to summarize. The point they make about the erotic focus (children versus being a child getting scolded and humiliated) is a central distinction that I think merits highlighting. I can go either way regarding the use of masochistic gynaephiles versus paraphilic infantilists, but I would like to include it as an alternate term in the lead. Normally I prefer the reference to link explicitly to the topic at hand, but this is sufficiently obviously related to the topic that I think it avoids original research or synthesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And where exactly is 'infantilism' mentioned in that paper? I know some nappy fetishes are mentioned, but according to the DSM, they are in different categories. BitterGrey (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Page 561, "...masochistic gynaephiles...habitually imagine themselves as little boys or babies in sexual fantasies involving adult women." Given that definition, I think it's worth including it in the page, though more questionable is contrast between pedophiles and masochistic gynaephiles. It may only be worth mentioning it as a single sub-type. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This page is about neither pedophiles nor "masochistic gynaephiles." After all the accusations you've made against me, you try and slip this tangle of WP:SYNTH through? BitterGrey (talk) 06:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Give the definition of masochistic gynaephiles, I believe we can use common sense and apply it to the page. Unlike the DSM, which casually mentions a single behaviour as one among many, the fundamental definition of masochistic gynaephiles involves behaving like a child (ironically for masochistic reasons). I was also very, very careful in my reading of the source to separate out the parts of the source that directly applied to the page, versus the use of the DSM which casually read into a variety of pages a large amount of text that wasn't there. However, it might be better placed elsewhere and could be shortened. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Being "very, very careful" with one's WP:SYNTH doesn't change the fact that it is a novel synthesis, not supported by the reference, driven by the determination to cite Cantor/Blanchard even when irrelevant.

The "common sense" argument can't be given by the person who just stripped all mention of the fetishism section of the DSM, and all general sections that might apply to fetishism, from the diaper fetish article, because "DSM does not cite anything except the appearance as part of masochism[29]". Common sense would be that people could have fetishes for items other than the six items listed ("Among the more common fetish objects are women's underpants, bras, stockings, shoes, boots, or other wearing apparel"), such as rubber, spandex, etc. WLU's arguments make no sense, and displays a double standard. It only makes sense if the true motive has always been to replace DSM with citations for fringe theories by Cantor/Blanchard. BitterGrey (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But if that were truly the case than a single article on fetishism would be sufficient. One wouldn't need to elaborate on the infinite number of objects to which fetishism could be applied. All you'd have to say is that, "Diaper love is a fetish, please see the fetish article for further details". According to that logic to elaborate would be to engage in tautology. On RS it says "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". The DSM is a suitable rs for talking about fetishism generally but it is not a suitable source for talking about this specific fetish and basing an article around it is ludicrous. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

@WLU I think it's a pretty good draft. However, personally I think it would be better to begin with a more detailed description of the behaviours and desires that make infantilism identifiable. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I see the masochism as a subsection simply because so many sources describe it as masochistic (which I personally think is either a mis-reading of the DSM or an aspect of a poorly-studied fetish which rarely appears in the scientific literature). I'm not sure of the placement, but it would be below the first section after the lead, which would discuss the core characteristics. I see the masochism angle as a wrinkle rather than a main focus, but we have to go where the sources take us. I like it because it says "yes, the DSM links this to masochism, but it's not quite exact". Another option is (if we can source it), one section discussing infantilism as a masochistic behaviour and another discussing it as a lifestyle. Again, sources limit us.

Could you also have a very careful read of the Fruend & Blanchard section and source? Though I disagree with Bittergrey's comments, he does underscore that we have to be quite careful in how we use it because the terminology is not exact. After thinking about it for the past day or so, it may not be worth including simply because it's inexact. I really, really like the distinction they make between pedophiles and masochistic gynaephiles ("I'm a child because I want to have sex with a child" versus "I'm a child so this woman can tell me how naughty I've been").

All this is making me think that we're missing sources for a key part of paraphilic infantilism, individuals who are in it purely for the eroticization of childhood rather than humiliation. If you have someone who simply dresses like a baby when there is no-one else around, that's not really masochism. If you have two people who behave like babies around each other, that's not either. I'm guessing we'll have to look into the non-scholarly literature for that, since the scholarly mostly focusses on psychiatric and criminal populations (i.e. people who get arrested, committed or treated). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne, per your "not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" quote, the CAMH ref and text are WP:OR, because it indicates no relevance to infantilism. Yet you only apply this quote as an argument only against the DSM. As is easily confirmed, the DSM defines infantilism, while the CAMH ref cited here doesn't even use the word. This is a clear double standard.BitterGrey (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What reference do you mean when you say "CAMH"? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything written by Cantor or Blanchard or by anyone employed at the centre where they work. FiachraByrne (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Freund and Blanchard (1993) is referred to as a text about infantilism by Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008).FiachraByrne (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, p. 531. That actually seals it for me, I have no problem with Freund & Blanchard being used, though I still think we should be very careful about doing so. Excellent, that'll make a very good addition to the sections on how paraphilic infantilism is separate from pedophilia but related to masochism.

And of course, reliability is not determined by where a person works or their pre-existing conclusions. Both Cantor et al. and F&B are unarguably reliable and appropriate for the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

CAMH is a reference to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, a cluster of colleagues who frequently coauthor papers. As a result, they might be expected to be less than critical of each other's work. So far, it seems to be the only source for this fringe theory. BitterGrey (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

@WLU, I agree it would need to be handled with sensitivity - there's no indication from that text that those in the AB/DL category have a higher rate of paedophilic behaviour than any other population group, paraphilic or otherwise. Giving that section undue weight might insinuate that this was not the case. Also, while the theory is not, I think, fringe, neither is it mainstream and there are plenty of critics. However, as you indicate, the text has some of the clearest descriptions of masochistic behaviour in "infantilism". FiachraByrne (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

At best, this text is an obscure vehicle to promote the neologism, "masochistic gynaephiles". Equating this neologism with infantilism includes the assertion that infantilists are ALL either heterosexual men or homosexual women, since gynephilia is the love of women.

Furthermore, it does not mesh with the fringe view stretching erotic target location errors to explain infantilism. A pedophilic masochistic gynaephile with an erotic target location error would envision himself a _girl_ (pedo- child, gyne - woman). This is not true even of the cases reported, which include one who fantasized about being a boy of 10 and two who were unspecified. ( We can't get more details on the unspecified cases, since this is a primary source. ) This shows a serious failure either by the author, those engaging in the WP:SYNTHESIS necessary to use the paper in this way, or both.

Interestingly, not even a basic definition was reported correctly. Gynephilia is "The love of women; a sexual attraction to women, in general." Blanchard mistakenly defines it as "...males whose erotic targets are women." (p558) BitterGrey (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)