Template talk:Paraphilias/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nazi Chic

Dendophilia comes from Dengerism and Tasinarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.171.52.137 (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Would Nazi Chic qualify? Chris 02:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No it wouldnt, Nazi Chic is paraphinalia which is a set of item associated with a certain topic such as Nazi girls clothing, or marijuana, this template is for Paraphilias which are sexual fetishes like, Dendrophilia: the attarction to trees, or Gomaphilia the attraction to rubber and latex.Qrc2006 22:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Other sexological topics

Not sure if this belongs in the template. Although 'Sexually transmitted diseases and infections' is a topic related to every paraphilia and fetish, I don't think it's information people are looking for when they read about these topics. Robotman1974 07:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

there is a reason for this, this template is a breakup of the Sex template, which shortly after it was started began to become gigantic in scope so it was decided that each group of terms should become its own template STDs / Sexual Orientation / Praphilia / Sex acts, and all link to each other, only Paraphilia and STD/STI are done so far, so yeah thats why. Qrc2006 22:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see the template is growing in size. I fear it may become too unwieldy as more and more paraphilia are added. Are both the medical/official/latin term and the regular everyday name really necessary in the template itself? I think going with either one or the other would do just fine for navigation purposes, and make the template less intimidating to study. Like I said, I can only see the list expanding in the future. Since many paraphilia don't have official-sounding names, maybe we should stick to the colloquial terms? Also, I'm guessing you'll be adding more links to more sex-related topics. Again, I don't think that's necessary, but why not structure the other links as they are in this template for example? Robotman1974 09:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Category

Also noticed this template is in the category of California templates, it should be moved but to where, I don't exactly know. Robotman1974 07:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC) when i made this template i used the california one as a base since i used that from the berkeley and richmond, ca ones i made to make it, im sure someone will fix it eventually as they did to the STD/STI oneQrc2006 22:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• I fixed it as I was surprised to find it in the 'california' category under Richmond :-) I'd say it's fine as a standalone category - Alison^✍ 22:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Philias

when i made this template i thought about adding in for example dendrophilia (plants), asphixofphilia (suffocating) somthing like that to make it easier to navigate the more esoteric terms, but since the list was very extensive i thought it more important to just get it off the ground, but now that its done im wondering, if anyone else thinks this is a good ideaQrc2006 22:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say to only include the 'official sounding' names in the template, as the colloquial term is only a click away. Either that or the other way around, but however it's done it should be consistent. Robotman1974 23:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done a major edit of the template in order to remove all the clutter and obfuscating excess. In this form it should be much easier both to navigate and to update. The template is also now less intrusive to an article's space; especially short articles. I've also realphabetised and removed a double entry. Now, only the article titles themselves are listed. Additional names for these paraphilia and fetishes, as well as brief descriptions should be mentioned within the specific articles themselves, not the template. Robotman1974 06:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Furry fandom

I've removed the template from the Fursuit page and added the link once more to the Yiff page. The Fursuit page does not deal exclusively with sexual uses, and only mentions it in passing. It is presumptuous at best to think that people interested in fursuits would be at all interested in the pages linked to in the Paraphilia template. The Yiff page, however, is dedicated to the sexual aspects of furry fandom. Use of fursuits for sexual purposes should perhaps be written into the Yiff article. Robotman1974 09:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the term you are looking for is fursuitsex/fursuit sex, I expect that would be appropriate to mention briefly in the fursuit article. It's more appropriate to that article than to the yiff one which covers a very broad range of concepts. Tyciol (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Template header

I'd like to change the header from "Paraphilia" to "Paraphilias and fetishes". If there are no objections to this in the next five days, I'll go ahead with it. Robotman1974 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure, why do you want to add in the word fetish, i think it should be simple as possible and since this is an encyclopedia the more academic term should be used, i also think it should be user friendly and lots of -philias AND -fetish are in the category however since the word fetish allready appears all over the article titles linked to i dont see why it needs to be added, but if you think it will be helpful and more educational to have a more complex title do so. and i dont care that much either way, unless you have to retag every single page from {{Template:Paraphilia}} then i think its really uncessisary and theres better uses for our time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 27 January 2007.

The way I see it, a paraphilia and a fetish are very similar but not exactly the same. As it stands, the template includes links to articles on both topics. Also, the links in each article would not need to be changed, as only the template header would be altered. I have no intention of performing a page-move on this template. Thanks for your input though. Robotman1974 00:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Added "Categories"

What is the source/justification for breaking the articles in this template into the "categories" of "Paraphilia terms", "Sexual fetishism practices", and "Other"? To me, it looks like it's based solely on the way the articles are currently titled. If there is a proper organization scheme for breaking the links up in this manner, it should be noted. Otherwise, it looks rather iffy to me, and might even constitute original research. If no satisfactory explanation/justification for these added "categories" is forthcoming, I will revert this template to the way it was before - a collection of alphabetized links. I think that is the only type of structure we can impose on such a collection of paraphilias and fetishes. 66.222.227.42 02:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I created Template:Sex fetish from removed items. Will roseburg 13:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff. Also, some of the items need to be moved from the fetishes to the paraphillias. I'm in the process of making a list of fetishes on the "sexual fetishes" article. The context is somewhat different in that I'm listing objects subject to fetishes rather than the inclination to cultural groups with agendas.194.112.32.101 14:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i divided it into groups. Needs little more work. Garment fetishism can be made a separate group. Will roseburg 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the "e" (editing?) character on the Template:Sex fetish. I think it's a mix-up with the name of the template and its location... probably beyond my scope here.

Grouping the fetishes is a good idea, but I'm not entirely convinced by the available categories of "partialism, action, and object" or "mental phenomena and material objects". The "action" and "mental phenomena" categories seem to be problematic, in that the subjects may cross the line into other types of paraphilias, new types of paraphilias, or in fact may not exist at all. For example; doll fetish, robot fetishism appear to be essentially a neologism of statuephilia. Also, there are some sexual practices from Japanese culture that are not necessarily fetishes - Nyotaimori, Omorashi, Wakamezake. Maybe neologisms and Japanese erotic play could be new categories within the dominant "Sexual fetishes"... 194.112.32.101 16:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your input on Japanese culture, I don't consider these fetishes either. Even if I did, none of us are psychiatric professionals, we lack enough knowledge about paraphilias to just randomly add things to the category on impulse. This needs to be properly sourced. Tyciol (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Error

The Asian People not is a fetish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.174.207.227 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy fetishism

Might want to add Pregnancy fetishism. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Exists in the template as Maiesiophilia. -kotra (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Lolicon and shotacon

I noticed this template at the bottom of the article, which adds it to the Category:Paraphilias. I object to this inclusion of these two genres under 'japanese terms'. I don't believe I've heard of the DSM describing lolicon and shotacon as paraphilias, so how has it been included that they belong in this template? I am strongly considering removing it if there's not a sufficient explanation. I am ignorant of the practise of psychology/psychiatry in Japan so possible their diagnostic manuals include them? That would be an adequate reason I suppose since Wikipedia covers the whole world, but in that case, I would ask you provide an explanation of this reason for inclusion on these respective articles. When there is merely a box added to the bottom, I believe it is confusing for readers. Furthermore, this is an english encyclopedia. While it's perfectly fine to include words from other languages, I am confused as to why only Japanese terms have been added here. Why not terms for paraphilias in other languages, like french, or german? Things which are actually written in our letters for example, rather than romanized kanji? User:Redblueball and some other IP added these a year ago, prior to that it was only english terms. Tyciol (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hebephilia

Regarding Flyer22's dummy edit comment: Actually, hebephilia IS still considered a paraphilia. What is up in the air is whether/how/when it can be diagnosed as a mental illness. That is, a sexual interest can be a paraphilia and not a mental illness. (One of the changes that is going into DSM5 is that there will be both paraphilias and paraphilic disorders, with only the paraphilic disorders being diagnosed as mental illnesses.) Although many folks (including professionals) discuss the topic as if hebephilia is something new being added or not added to the DSM, that is not correct. The discussion is over whether hebephilia should have it's own name vs. being the catch-all category of Paraphilia NOS (which is being changed to Paraphilia NEC) vs. stay an ambiguous portion of pedophilia. (The DSM-IV-TR refers to prepubertal kids, but refers to that as being age 13 and under, which is the hebephilia range.) So (except that I am avoiding POV pushing) I think hebephilia should be on this template, together with the others, very few of which are mentioned in the DSM.— James Cantor (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh, I think it makes sense to be in the template in some form, but I won't replace it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

James, from what I've read, and I've read a lot on this, hebephilia is not considered a paraphilia or mental disorder by most researchers. And despite the distinctions made by some with regard to "paraphilia" and "mental disorder," the two go hand in hand too often, and too many people think that paraphilia implies "mental disorder." So that's my reason for objecting to it being on this template. Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And I don't know exactly what to state about the DSM having the prepubescent age range go all the way up to 13, other than what I stated here and here. It definitely appears to me that they are trying to take care of that overlap, where kids, especially boys, may still be prepubescent; and where pubescents, especially boys, still look prepubescent. So, in that sense, of people still looking prepubescent or mostly prepubescent, I do feel that most researchers consider hebephilia to be abnormal. But it would make more sense if the DSM cut the age range off at 12 than at 13. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)