Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:26, 21 February 2012

Sexology and sexuality C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as High-importance).

Archives

Start to December, 2004 January, 2005 to December, 2006 January, 2007 to December, 2008 January, 2009 to present

Homosexuality

I have just added back in the sentence and reliable source about homosexuality previously being listed as a paraphilia. It is an important historical aspect of this conceptualization of sexuality. It shows that "paraphilia" is an arbitrary and shifting concept dictated by cultural forces rather than a "science" concept. Jokestress (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality#Psychology based on several most reliable sources available in depth explain that "the original position that homosexuality was a disorder was not supported by empirical research. One cause for the change in positions was that this common wisdom was challenged by empirical data showing people who were homosexual and very well-adjusted." (source: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Plaintiffs-Amended-PFFs-annotated-version.pdf#page=140) Thus your explanation is fatally unfounded and this is a reason why I remove irrelevant sentence about homosexuality which don't belong there. --Destinero (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. You seem to think this is a debate about whether homosexuality is a disorder or not. The source you cite above is about why homosexuality was removed as a disorder. Regardless of that issue, it is a fact that it was once defined as a paraphilia. Its former designation as a paraphilia is an important part of the history of that concept. We should not be trying to revise history, but reporting on facts using reliable sources. Jokestress (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. The source I cited above and the sources used in Homosexuality#Psychology explain that "as results from such research accumulated, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences reached the conclusion that it was inaccurate to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system." That does it mean that the inclusion of homosexuality in DSM was in error. I agree that we should not be trying to revise history and not create unfounded illusions as if paraphilia is arbitrary and shifting concept dictated by cultural forces rather than a "science" concept. I am asking other editors to comment the issue. Personally I am conviced that the sentence about homosexuality from the time before 40 years is completely inappropriate and out of context in the paraphilia article. --Destinero (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As you note, homosexuality was once classified as a paraphilia. That is a fact which should be included in the paraphilia article as well as the homosexuality article. It was also once classified as a mental disorder. That is a fact which should also be included in Misplaced Pages. It's not a question of whether people agree with those things, but whether they are true and documented in reliable sources. In both cases they are, and we should include them for historical purposes. Jokestress (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

O.K. As you wish. I added important facts illustrating context that there were not empirical evidence which would justified the inclusion of homosexuality in the list. I agree with you it's not a question of whether people agree with those things, but whether they are true and documented in reliable sources. They are, and we should include them for historical purposes. --Destinero (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think you understand. Labeling homosexuality a paraphilia and labeling homosexuality a mental disorder are two separate issues. You keep adding information about labeling homosexuality as a mental disorder. That is not especially relevant. You should be including information about homosexuality being declassified as a paraphilia, which occurred separately. Jokestress (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The way this was inserted relies primarily on primary sources (DSM eds), which can be a problem (WP:OR). The intent (to show the historic shift) in a way that is not made in the primary sources does suggest this is WP:OR. I agree that it could be included in a section on the history of paraphilia and diagnoses, but this needs to rely on secondary sources that deal with the historic shift in what is considered paraphilia, and explicitly deals with homosexuality as one instance of this. Mish (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Here are some secondary sources on the topic:

• Seiden, Howard (August 6, 1983). Perverts inflict desires on unwilling partners. Montreal Gazette.

"Even homosexuality has been reclassified by the American Psychiatric Association from a paraphilia to a 'sexual orientation disturbance.'"

• Charles Allen Moser, Paraphilia: A Critique of a Confused Concept. In Kleinplatz, Peggy (2001). New directions in sex therapy: innovations and alternatives. Psychology Press, ISBN 9780876309674

"Is homosexuality a paraphilia? It was the equivalent of a paraphilia in DSM-I and -II. It was and is still seen by some as dysfunctional. So how did it come it be removed from the DSM? Its removal was a political act (Bayer, 1981), no more motivated by new scientific research that the inclusion and later exclusion of masturbation and oral sex." (p. 100).

"In the DSM-II (APA, 1968, the following are listed as sexually deviant behaviors: homosexuality, fetishism, pedophilia, transvestism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadism, masochism, other sexual deviation, and unspecified sexual deviation." (p. 96).

I'll add a history section soon, but I also believe it should be mentioned in the lede. Jokestress (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Moser seems to clinch this, eh? You have the sources, so fine, I am sure it was seen and treated as such - and this should not be excluded from the article (even if people would prefer it wasn't in there). Let's face it, a range of approaches, like aversion therapy & chemical castration, were used for a number of paraphilias, and homosexuality, and it being regarded as a paraphilia explains the logic behind that approach to homosexuality (mental illness alone would not fully explain it). Whether it needs to be in the lead I reserve opinion on - I see no reason why it should, but I can't say I'm moved to argue against it. Mish (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So foot fetishism's not a paraphilia, huh?

"American Journal of Psychiatry describes paraphilia as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving:

1. nonhuman objects, or
2. the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner, or
3. children, or
4. nonconsenting persons.' "
   70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's called Partialism according to these guys. Jokestress (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. (Don't know right now how it will be fitted into the article.) "Individuals with partialism sometimes describe the anatomy of interest to them as having equal or greater erotic attraction for them as do the genitals." Seems that there may be a good number of para-pervs among Pam Anderson fans (Breast fetishism). :D 206.130.173.55 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Is a woman who (sexually) prefers a marital aid to a real man a fetishist and thus a paraphiliac?

What if she uses it to treat her Female hysteria?   :D   70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The intro explains that these guys specifically exclude sex toys, which they see as a means to an end. No word on if your masturbatory fantasy is about a sex toy, or if you can only get off inside a sex toy store or looking at sex toy catalogues... Jokestress (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I see it. Sorry folks, and thanks for pointing it out. :) 206.130.173.55 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So when does "psychologically normative adult human sexual behaviors, sexual fantasy, and sex play" become "paraphilial psychopathology?"

70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

When these "experts" decide what is "normal." Usually that means anything outside of what they do, to paraphrase Kinsey. Jokestress (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Must this definition be by a buncha psychiatrists--and APA ones (and the like) at that?

What about the British and European ones? Homosexuality once had many people defining it. The Law once considered it a crime. The Church considered it an abomination. Socially, it was considered plumb disgustin' ("They do what?!?"); and the psychiatrists and psychologists considered it to be a mental illness, to at times be treated with drugs, counseling ("We are making progress in curing your sickness"), and, I read somewhere, in some caes in treating wimmen suffering from les'banism, Female genital cutting (nice that Misplaced Pages uses a NPOV term like "cutting" instead of "mutilation").

But seriously folks, it seems to be a decent word. "Para-" (in Greek para παρά = "beside") and "-philia" (φιλία = "friendship"). So you like to masturbate on logs or you like footjobs. Sounds weird, kinky even, but likely harmless. But then the shrinks came in, mixed it in with non-consensual sex, and say it's all a disorder, unless they figure it's mild enough, presumably in their expert opinions, to say otherwise. Thanks a lot eggheads. Folks we need better sources, because right now the Wikinfo article on paraphilia is looking almost as good.70.54.181.70 (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, User:70.54.181.70. Some of your questions above get close to being general discussion about the concept, rather than a discussion about improving the article. This is not a forum, so I am going to steer your legitimate questions more toward the article content. Having said that, I agree that this article does a poor job of explaining this conceptualization. Much of it was written by people whose livelihoods depends on these phenomena being viewed as a matter of addiction or as a matter of mental health. Therefore, it is biased toward a psychosexual pathology model of human erotic interests. "Paraphilia" may seem like a decent word, but it's part of the problem, as noted in the last paragraph of the intro: it medicalizes and pathologizes non-procreative sexual interests. I've tried to include some of the less pathologizing conceptualizations like lovemaps or "exotic becomes erotic," but the whole article remains imbued with the language of disorder and disease. Would you like to help us fix it? Jokestress (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jokestress wrote "Much of it was written by people whose livelihoods depends on these phenomena being viewed as a matter of addiction or as a matter of mental health..." Is there an RS for that particular personal attack? Or is it just a personal attack? (For the record, I personally receive an entirely unionized salary that is based entirely upon seniority.) So, if not me, who are these "people" about whom Jokestress feels entitled to disregard WP:NPA? Jokestress would appear to have continence problem about dragging her long-standing, well-documented, off-wiki disputes here, should strike-out her comment, and stick to the facts.— James Cantor (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read it in terms of WP:NPA as no names were mentioned, and I have no idea who wrote "much of it". I saw this more in terms of WP:COI, although this was not stated explicitly. I didn't see an implied attack, but a comment about where people's interest might lie. This is a problem, because Misplaced Pages relies on the expertise of people who have a financial investment in some topics - but hopefully that is counterbalanced by others who have a different kind of investment in those topics. Mish (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Same guy, different IP (I know, I know--get an account--I have 3 already--long story). Actually, I've read a number of edits from the both of you (and I think you too Mish), and I'm impressed by the knowledge and interest; and perhaps I come with a POV from things like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

I suppose James Cantor's job is somewhat thankless given I've taken swipes at Cantor's profession, one that might actually be helping people--I admit great ignorance on some matters here ("some"?!?). There are those in the feild quite critical of the orthodoxy. James, have you heard of former Torontonian Paula Caplan (she seems to have targetted Freud) who wrote The Myth of Women's Masochism. These's also Thomas Szasz who wrote The Myth of Mental Illness which I got from the Category:Anti-psychiatry. I like RationalWiki's take on it, and it's take on $cientology.

As for the article. Hmmm. I was just checking it out from another article I was interested in. I'm more tempted to see if I could do one for Wikinfo and RationalWiki as one is not confined to established sources. If, after all, the eggheads have co-opted the word, defined by one decades ago before a number of things were discredited, and later seemingly re-defined by committe; there may be a level of futility in trying to improve it here--though this might defeatism on my part. Consider Agnosticism (Wiktionary). Huxley takes simple root words essentially meaning "don't know" and puts his ideosyncratic tag, "will never know" "can never know" and people who just don't know are left without a good word for their position. Maybe "Lovemap" will render paraphilia as obselete as GLTG rights did "Homophile."206.130.174.42 (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm more with Szasz now than when he was keynote speaker alongside Ronnie Laing at a conference I attended 25 years ago (the UK interpretation of his ideas led to a lot of people in mental institutions being dumped on the streets). I did some research into GLF & the anti-psychiatry movement a few years back. It is ironic what has happened since homosexuality was normalised, and by whom. But hey, this is not a forum, eh? Mish (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word paraphilia in Misplaced Pages

Many wikipedia pages address sexual practices and desires as "paraphilia", usually following the DSM-IV. I know, it's not part of this article, but it should be noted a paraphilia is ultimately just a "sexual preference that lacks political activists" (in a given society).

Even plain old eterosexual preferences may be viewed as a paraphilia, by individuals who live in a society where such practices and desires are condemned.

In ancient Athene, where "nurturing" young kids was considered pretty much normal for the adult male, copulating with one's own wife for the pleasure of both - and not jus as a duty - was seen as a Spartan aberration.

While the concept of paraphilia may have some merit, it is in the association between desires, social sustenaibility of them, personal ethics rules of one, and the distress caused by the conflict among these forces to the individuals experiencing these desires.

But, these are moving like floating sands.

At the peak of the AIDS scare, someone precognised a future where "Latex fetish" would have become the prevalent form of "sex entertainment"; Should have it occurred, the DSM would probably have wrote it off from the paraphilias to add "occasional sex without rubber protections" - I cant't dare to dream the name that such pathology would have got - instead...

Depending on the conditions - of the individual involved, his set of personal beliefs about sex, the surrounding society and its culture... - any form of sexual desire, or lack of it, may or may not be constructed as a paraphilia affecting one individual.

But this is hardly ever pointed out, or even noted, in all of the various pages that link to this, almost invariably pages "XXX" that starts with "XXX is a paraphilia" instead of "XXX is a sexual preference that may constitute the basis of a paraphilia, if the conditions identifying the state of paraphilia are met"...

Is there any way to let these concepts reach all those misusers of this term? 83.46.214.73 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Sexology project talk page is probably a better place to discuss this - and you need to elaborate on which articles you regard as problematic in this respect. If the terminology itself is medical, and described as paraphilia in DSM or ICD, then not sure how you get round that. However, if the terminology is not there may be more scope. So, pedophilia is a paraphilia - but kiddy fiddler is a slang description for pedophile, so if there were an article on that expression, I'd expect some sort of reference to the medical jargon of 'pedophile', alongside the prison jargon of nonce, etc. - but would not expect to see a medical description for kiddy fiddling itself as a paraphilia. Ditto for fetishistic transvestism - I'd expect that to link to paraphilia, but if there were an article based on the expression panty wanker, I'd expect a link to transvestite, but wouldn't expect to see a medical description for panty wanking as a paraphilia per se. I'd say the same for most things like this. Mish (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Men who use prostitutes sex workers women who are in prostitution

Could somebody explain to me why men using prostitutes sex workers is not a paraphilia? My partner and I see people negotiating this kind of transaction most days, and don't understand why a form of sex that involves inanimate objects (money) is not classified in the same way as other forms of sex involving handcuffs and whips (for example). Mish (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sex worker patrons aren't aroused by the money (inanimate), they are aroused by the human sex worker or by the idea of prostitution. "Paraphilia" is a conceptualization based on what arouses someone. Being attracted to a "normal" human is not a mental illness according to these guys, but being attracted to an "abnormal" human is a mental illness. If someone is too fat, or too short, or too disabled or too gender variant or whatever, being attracted to them is a paraphilia, one of the many -philias. The "expert" list is constantly expanding to include new kinds of attractions as diseases. These guys think it's prestigious to be the first one to come up with a new -philia. I agree the article could be clearer about what constitutes this disorder, since 90% of the article represents the clinical/disease POV, citing documents written by psychiatrists and what-not, as the IP editor points out. Jokestress (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mish, shouldn't this heading have "==" rather than "==="?     :)
I figure most men who use prostitutes would rather no money be involved. There was, however, a scene in The Happy Hooker where a guy got off on the prostitute using finance and business talk, but again, that's the only one I know about. There was also an SCTV skit where one of the rich English aristocrats (was it played by Joe Flaherty ?)was getting it on with the maid, saying "I love you lower class girls. You are so lower class", there is also David Bowie's line "Hot tramp, I love you so", and there are women who occasionally fantasize about being prostitutes; but I doubt there will be a "prostitute-philia" named for the 3 former instances, and the latter is more a specific kind of fantasy than a sign of "prostitute-client-philia."205.189.194.250 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jokestress, I misunderstood the motivation. I was under the misapprehension that men had sex with sex workers because of the money, I had never considered they might want to have sex with them for nothing. I just assumed that the transaction was what made it sexually exciting, and that it was the idea of paying for sex (and the power in that) that motivated men to do this.Mish (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the customers are not aroused by the money itself (as in they get hot and bothered whenever someone flashes cash in front of them). I don't think anyone has jumped on "pornephilia" (attraction to sex workers) or "chremataphilia" (arousal to money) yet, so you could be an "expert" if you want by writing an article saying you discovered them! These "experts" are starting to expand the concept of "paraphilia" as a thoughtcrime, so attraction to the thought or idea of sex work might eventually be considered a "paraphilia" by these guys. I'll look for some sources that make it more clear that the arousal is to the object itself. Jokestress (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

For some people, the fact that they pay money helps them to objectify a sex worker. In that way, the sex worker is just another object, and they are paying for the use of it. They say what they want to do or have done, and after they receive that they leave with no thought of the sex worker afterword. If they were to do that often enough that it was the only way to get sexual arousal, it would be a paraphilia in a way, as the sex worker is just an object to them, not a person. Atom (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking.

Wouldn't "pornophilia" (attraction to photographs of naked women in magazines) be more appropriate than "pornephilia" as a term? Although I guess that is not a paraphilia because it would cover a large proportion of half the population at some point in their lives. Mish (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The term paraphilia when used by a pyschologist means that a person can not achieve arousal by any means other than the object, or objects (multiple paraphilia's). When used by "lay people", it is used much more loosely, in the same context as "kink". If someone is aroused by women's shoes, or by lingerie, for instance they may call it their kink, and use the term for the paraphilia associated with those to describe their interest. But in fact, those are only interests, not their sole means of becoming aroused. Atom (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So, somebody who can only achieve arousal using porn, or by having sex with sex workers, or wearing frilly knickers - they have a paraphilia. But people who can achieve arousal with another human being without props, they don't have a paraphilia, regardless of whether they have sex with sex workers, use porn, wear frilly knickers, or have some other kink? So, a sex addict, who exclusively engages in sex with strangers - would that be a paraphilia, or does their having sex with a human object mean that is not paraphilia? Mish (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

These guys? These "experts"? Who are we talking about? I'm on a first name basis with a great many of "them", and I can't think of any who would so classify those. (Ironically, I was quoted in The Globe and Mail last week, saying that another sexual interest (twins) wouldn't be diagnosed either.) So, who are all of these alleged folks drooling in anticipation of a new reason to diagnose something?

I can only ask Jokestress the same as I always do (and she ignores, as above)...what's the evidence? So far, I see only an (ironic) dependence on a stereotype: one of researchers as conservative, cold, unaware beings who couldn't possibly be motivated simply by curiousity to know the truth, and instead spent decades studying statistics because it would be an efficient means of oppression and world domination. Nerds would be our tyrants were it not for selfless postmodernists reminding us that the world doesn't exist....

But what's the evidence?

— James Cantor (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

So, say somebody (who is not themselves dwarfish) is only sexually aroused by dwarves (or I could use amputees here), that is not a paraphilia, yes? What about somebody who is exclusively attracted to women with a penis, or men with a vagina - whether pre-op transsexual, or lifestyle choice woman with penis (or man with a vagina) - that is not a paraphilia? Mish (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Jokestress was correct when she said that these talkpages are not forums for discussing the page's topics. Instead, let me direct you to a short article I just posted on my website which addresses exactly those issues: http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/page13.html — James Cantor (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this, James. Not aware there is such a thing as the DSD community - perhaps this is why you have missed any response, there has been a response in that part of the intersex community which resists the use of DSD. Mish (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above, I have inserted the relevant source and text in the Intersex article. I have to admit some of COI, as I am quoted by the organisation concerned within its commentary. You will see that this position statement was issued over a month ago, James: http://oiiaustralia.com/organisation-intersex-international-position-statement-dsmv-draft-february-2010/ Mish (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

@Atom - the article text does not state that arousal is only elicited by such an object, only that such arousal is a dominant feature. So, according to the artcile, a man who enjoys frequently masturbating in frilly knickers is still classified as having a paraphilia even if he enjoys sexual intercourse with his wife without frilly knickers being involved. If the article is wrong on this count, perhaps somebody should edit it accordingly - otherwise we might be misleading men who like masturbating in frilly knickers yet enjoy healthy sex-lives with their partners that they have a psychiatric problem. Mish (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"These guys? These 'experts'? Who are we talking about?" I'm referring to a sub-group, figures in the past that define standards for today, and the committees that tend to create the frankensteins--as do other committees.

Ian Brown's done some sexual stuff where he's kinda condescended on people (though I admit, some of them didn't seem too sympathetic). As for a possible twin-philia, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. Consider Dead Ringers ("you call me Beverly, you call me Elliot," "gynecological instruments for mutant women" and all).

I will print and read your stuff, James.

"So far, I see only an (ironic) dependence on a stereotype: one of researchers as conservative, cold, unaware beings...Nerds would be our tyrants were it not for selfless postmodernists reminding us that the world doesn't exist...." Not so much that, but rather people who have spent years, likely decades, and a $100,000's to get into the guild, and who aren't easily going to be contradicted by people pointing out notable inconsistencies of their craft--such as foot fetishism's not being a paraphilia because the article says the tome refers only to non-human objects, S&M, sex with children, and non-consensual sex. I have a feeling that if someone went to Dr. James and said, "Doctor, I like women's feet, I like to go into the woods and J.O. on fallen logs, and am at my sexual best when there are 20 stuffed pigs in the room. Am I a perv, because my friends say I am.", I have a feeling that Dr. James would likely spend more time assuring him of his overal normality. But based on this article, that guy would be considered a sicko unless proven otherwise, and as, I'm sure, it's based on links to the "authoritive sources." The problem isn't so much the article or people like Dr. James, and maybe a few of his friends, who, say, if they ever got drunk on Orange Bicardi during a cook-out, might laugh at some of the pontifications of their predecessors. The article itself, in my view, seems destined to be at least partially flawed until the sources change.206.130.173.55 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

@Mish "Could somebody explain to me why men using prostitutes sex workers is not a paraphilia?" ◄•Yes, it could be a paraphilia in some cases (but not always) some humans see and use other humans or sex workers as sex objects, so they actually have a sexual fetish for sex workers or humans in general.
Alusky (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this information usefull

I wonder if some of this info may be useful to spice this article a bit more?

"The Paraphilias Subworkgroup is proposing two broad changes that affect all or several of the paraphilia diagnoses, in addition to various amendments to specific diagnoses. The first broad change follows from our consensus that paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders. We are proposing that the DSM-5 make a distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. A paraphilia by itself would not automatically justify or require psychiatric intervention. A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others. One would ascertain a paraphilia (according to the nature of the urges, fantasies, or behaviors) but diagnose a paraphilic disorder (on the basis of distress and impairment). In this conception, having a paraphilia would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder." From: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=191# in the "Rationale" tab.
Alusky (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

External link to CAMH

I believe a non-involved editor should review User:Bittergrey's deletion (and my reversion) of a long-standing EL on the mainpage. Bittergrey has today re-engaged his on-going WP:BATTLE against CAMH researchers (involving me: ), but was unsuccessful , and is now spreading his dispute here by deleting references to other CAMH researchers.— James Cantor (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this article came up on my watchlist due to a recent change . I reviewed that section first, and then the rest of the article. Please stop trying to get everything you don't like disregarded as a personal attack (e.g. ) BitterGrey (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here is a link to when James Cantor originally added the EL to his institution. His COI was acknowledged and is still present. BitterGrey (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And the consensus for inclusion is here .— James Cantor (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as stated in the first sentence, that debate was specific to James Cantor's reading list, the EL he added to this article next. The more general debate fragmented after Jokestresses demonstrated that James's Cantor's claim of having authored "3 of the top 10" papers on pedophilia was fully inaccurate .

Now, if we could get back to discussing the merits of the EL that this was initially about: I conceded that it was a nice list of questions. However, it seems of little value or significance. Kurt Freund's scale isn't even mentioned in the article on Kurt Freund. BitterGrey (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly as another editor informed you earlier today , when you realize something to be missing because a parallel of it exists somewhere else, the correct thing to do is to add the something to where it is missing, not delete what exists. That is, add the reference to the Kurt Freund page. (As I have long kept posted on my userpage, I do not edit Kurt Freund myself.) Adding what's missing is how the WP project grows.— James Cantor (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any support for the EL, just a number of attempts by someone with clear financial ties to divert the discussion. BitterGrey (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. You see only what matches your POV. Rather than starting a revert war, the appropriate thing to do in a case of your POV versus my POV is to ask for a third opinion regarding whether the EL is appropriate to this page. I will ask for neutral input there.— James Cantor (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have requested neutral input from the External Links Noticeboard, available here.

Claims of political shenanigans.

Some recent edits on the mainpage have added the claim that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM system was due to intense political pressure. The history of that issue is complicated and requires particular care to achieve NPOV. I am not sure that the issue is really relevant to this page at all; however, if the consensus is to include it, it must be done appropriately. I suggest using this talkpage to develop text.— James Cantor (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

it is referenced in the book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry by Dr. Ronald Bayer, "The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in sober discussion of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times."

15 Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis (New York: Basic Books, 1981), pp. 3-4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoobertjoo (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant, since it addresses how paraphilias are defined. That said, it will also be problematic. Would people agree to "...under intense political pressure..." as opposed to "...due to intense political pressure..."? BitterGrey (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am entirely aware that there exist authors who believe that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was 100% political...and entirely ignore the political context that led to its inclusion in the first place. Rather, I am saying that in order to achieve NPOV, we editors must cover each aspect of the issue, not just the one. Perhaps input could be requested from the talkpage of homosexuality, where this is much discussed.— James Cantor (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree; I have no idea who Bayer is; for all I know, he may be a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but I take it that the criterion for inclusion here (i.e. Misplaced Pages) is at least a substantial body of academic opinion worthy of mention as against a prevailing majority. Even so, we do not make the decision as to the values of competing opinions, we merely report disputes between various perspectives and leave it up to the reader to make up their own minds. Rodhullandemu 23:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I think the particular issue is rather tangential to this page, it is not (in my opinion) out of left-field either. I am saying only that, if it is going to be mentioned, that it has to be NPOV, which the current version is clearly not.— James Cantor (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So comment on the compromise offered, propose a new compromise, and/or offer some additional RS's. BitterGrey (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the source being cited for this, but I have read about the advocacy of Frank Kameny, Barbara Gittings, John E. Fryer, and Morris Kight. I'm questioning how intense this political pressure was. This was just two years after the Stonewall riots when Kight and a few others interrupted a Southern California meeting of about 20-30 psychiatrists and staged a zap where they accused the physicians in attendance of torturing patients who had been prescribed electroshock therapy to rid them of homosexual responses. (Atascadero Mental Hospital in California was so notorious for trying to cure homosexuality through draconian medical techniques it was called the "Dachau for queers".) It was a handful of Gay Liberation Alliance members at the meeting and half the psychiatrists walked out. The following year, Kameny, Gittings, and Fryer (in a grotesque mask) held a panel at the annual APA meeting to address whether homosexuality should be considered a mental disability. That was pretty much it. While I agree that the pressure was intense, it was from maybe 15 people at the most. Kameny and Gittings had some sway but seriously--not a lot. Gay political activism was still seen by mainstream America as weird and out there (maybe moreso) as communist activism. And probably interrelated. So if the allegation here is that psychiatrists were influenced to change their minds about homosexuality because they were met with a concentrated and organized effort on a large scale from gay activists, this was not the case. Large scale gay activism did not exist and in local stages it was barely organized. At the most, they were made to listen to the concerns of a few activists who introduced them to the idea that gay people were happy being gay. --Moni3 (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Moni3, I accept your point that the pressure was applied by a minority, not the mainstream population. However, let's please try to avoid value judgments ("grotesque mask"). BitterGrey (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Whats' the judgment there? Here's Fryer with Kameny and Gittings at the APA panel. The first time I saw that image I thought Michael Myers was speaking to the panel, perhaps so psychiatrists could be more accepting of serial knife murderers.

And my point isn't that pressure was applied by a minority. Two demonstrations for a resistant medical field on which the entire basis of homosexuality was Freud's pervasive ideas that homosexuality was a perpetual phase of immaturity caused by bad parenting. Freud and psychoanalysis caught on especially in the US where therapists endeavored to rid patients of their homosexuality through decades of analysis, engaging in a clear conflict of interest. The aforementioned activists just asked the field of psychiatry to consider the fact that gay people did not want to be cured of something they did not think was a sickness. --Moni3 (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Restart to address the text in question from above: "The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in sober discussion of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times."

Dr. Bayer's point seems to be that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM was the result of the times, the social upheavals of the 1960s and the folks who decided to remove it as a personality disorder did not endeavor to study the issue scientifically.

However, as I have not read Dr. Bayer's book, I do not know if he actually points out that the inclusion of homosexuality as a personality disorder in 1952 was itself a product of the times which were tainted by a massive movement to return to pre WWII society. Homosexuality existing outside the norm or average of human behavior is a Western cultural element. When medical texts began to address how to identify and address homosexuals in the late 19th century, they did it as a response to a legal problem. Nineteenth century legal issues surrounding homosexuality are not rooted in science but solid cultural and moral ideas about the roles of men and women in society. So, I came to this discussion late. Which editor is saying Dr. Bayer's points are by themselves neutral and complete? Has anyone participating in this discussion read Dr. Bayer's book in totality? --Moni3 (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone claiming that the one reference was neutral in itself. More a matter of bold adjustments to be followed by more bold adjustments. BitterGrey (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Does someone have an RS handy for "...and on clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples comprising patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system?" This is particularly relevant to this article, since the remaining paraphilias are still officially defined using those potentially unrepresentative samples. BitterGrey (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"At the same time that the pathologizing views of homosexuality in American psychiatry and psychology were being codified, countervailing evidence was accumulating that this stigmatizing view was ill founded. The publication of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953) demonstrated that homosexuality was more common than previously assumed, thus suggesting that such behaviors were part of a continuum of sexual behaviors and orientations. C. S. Ford and Beach (1951) revealed that same-sex behaviors and homosexuality were present in a wide range of animal species and human cultures. This finding suggested that there was nothing unnatural about same-sex behaviors or homosexual sexual orientation.

Psychologist Evelyn Hooker’s (1957) research put the idea of homosexuality as mental disorder to a scientific test. She studied a nonclinical sample of homosexual men and compared them with a matched sample of heterosexual men. Hooker found, among other things, that based on three projective measures (the Thematic Apperception Test, the Make-a-Picture- Story test, and the Rorschach), the homosexual men were comparable to their matched heterosexual peers on ratings of adjustment. Strikingly, the experts who examined the Rorschach protocols could not distinguish the protocols of the homosexual cohort from the heterosexual cohort, a glaring inconsistency with the then-dominant understanding of homosexuality and projective assessment techniques. Armon (1960) performed research on homosexual women and found similar results. In the years following Hooker’s (1957) and Armon’s (1960) research, inquiry into sexuality and sexual orientation proliferated. Two major developments marked an important change in the study of homosexuality. First, following Hooker’s lead, more researchers conducted studies of nonclinical samples of homosexual men and women. Prior studies primarily included participants who were in distress or incarcerated. Second, quantitative methods to assess human personality (e.g., Eysenck Personality Inventory, Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire ) and mental disorders (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ) were developed and were a vast psychometric improvement over prior measures, such as the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test, and House-Tree-Person Test. Research conducted with these newly developed measures indicated that homosexual men and women were essentially similar to heterosexual men and women in adaptation and functioning (Siegelman, 1979; M. Wilson & Green, 1971; see also review by Gonsiorek, 1991). Studies failed to support theories that regarded family dynamics, gender identity, or trauma as factors in the development of sexual orientation (e.g., Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981; Bene, 1965; Freund & Blanchard, 1983; Freund & Pinkava, 1961; Hooker, 1969; McCord, McCord, & Thurber, 1962; D. K. Peters & Cantrell, 1991; Siegelman, 1974, 1981; Townes, Ferguson, & Gillem, 1976). This research was a significant challenge to the model of homosexuality as psychopathology. In recognition of the legal nexus between psychiatric diagnosis and civil rights discrimination, especially for government employees, activists within the homophile rights movement, including Frank Kameny and the Mattachine Society of Washington, DC, launched a campaign in late 1962 and early 1963 to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM (D’Emilio, 1983; Kameny, 2009). This campaign grew stronger in the aftermath of the Stonewall riots in 1969. Those riots were a watershed, as the movement for gay and lesbian civil rights was embraced openly by thousands rather than limited to small activist groups (D’ Emilio, 1983; Katz, 1995). In the area of mental health, given the results of research, activists within and outside of the professions led a large and vocal advocacy effort directed at mental health professional associations, such as the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Association for Behavior Therapy, and called for the evaluation of prejudice and stigma within mental health associations and practices (D’Emilio, 1983; Kameny, 2009). At the same time, some LGB professionals and their allies encouraged the field of psychotherapy to assist sexual minority clients to accept their sexual orientation (Silverstein, 2007). As a result of the research and the advocacy outside of and within the American Psychiatric Association, that association embarked upon an internal process of evaluating the literature to address the issue of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder (Bayer, 1981; Drescher 2003; Drescher & Merlino, 2007; Sbordone, 2003; Silverstein, 2007). Upon the recommendation of its committee evaluating the research, the American Psychiatric Association Board of Trustees and general membership voted to remove homosexuality per se21 from the DSM in December 1973 (Bayer, 1981). The American Psychiatric Association (1973) then issued a position statement supporting civil rights protection for gay people in employment, housing, public accommodation, and licensing, and the repeal of all sodomy laws. In December 1974, the American Psychological Association (APA) passed a resolution affirming the resolution of the American Psychiatric Association. APA concluded: Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social and vocational capabilities. Further, the American Psychological Association urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations. (APA, 1975, p. 633) Since that time, the APA has passed numerous resolutions supporting LGB civil rights and psychological well-being (see APA, 2005a). Other mental health associations, including the NASW and the American Counseling Association, and medical associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have passed similar resolutions. Gradual shifts began to take place in the international mental health community as well. In 1992, the World Health Organization removed homosexuality per se from the International Classification of Diseases (Nakajima, 2003)." http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=9glOXO60Ij0C&pg=PA97&dq=homosexuality+removed+by+vote&hl=cs&ei=NC2iTNLRIYTAswatkJSKBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg page 94 and on --Destinero (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Destinero, are you kidding? Do you know anyone who would read that? --Moni3 (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Moni3: If somebody is too lazy to check facts (it takes about one minute) then he or she should not want to edit wikipedia since he or she is incopetent of doing so properly as Misplaced Pages fundamental policies demands. --Destinero (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Too lazy to check facts? What the hell? You just cut and pasted a huge chunk of information without even bothering to format it so it can be read in any sense. Who's too lazy to take the time to make it legible so you can actually use it to support your argument? Take a few extra moments to make it easier. --Moni3 (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just bothered to format that. I've spend about 30 minutes to look it up, copy and format. Or go to 22 and 23 page of http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf and read it yourself in PDF - nicely formatted. Now you can read it in two minutes. Is it fair enough? --Destinero (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dinero, thanks for the quotation. Having that handy will help us keep at least that part of the paragraph on-reference.

Moni, while shorter quotes are more frequently used around here, there are Wikipedians that will read that. BitterGrey (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

what evidence was used? the ref cites evidence was used, not what evidence was used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.4.38 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hooker, Armon etc. See http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf and http://books.google.com/books?id=9glOXO60Ij0C&pg=PA97&dq=homosexuality+removed+by+vote&hl=cs&ei=NC2iTNLRIYTAswatkJSKBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg page 94

Commenting on the proposed compromise

Bittergrey has proposed replacing (…)due to intense political pressure(…) with (…)under intense political pressure(…). This is not an adequate compromise; its meaning is identical and its wording is still nowhere near neutral. I suggest (…)after intense and politicized debate(…) with adequate referential support. I have made that change per WP:BRDC; the previous language was noncompliant with NPOV. Moreover, the assertion itself is inadequately supported. One half-reference merely points at the existence of a book without specificity (page, quote, etc.) for verification. The other goes to a Christian "Ex-Gay" group's political advocacy site—hardly a reasonable go-to source for neutral presentation of an event with which they fundamentally disagree. If the section on homosexuality is to remain (see below), we have simply got to do better than this. —Scheinwerfermann ·_C18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I was starting to think my proposal had been ignored completely. Apparently, others didn't like it either, and rewrote the section. The section can still certainly be improved. BitterGrey (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested reading/sources

May I suggest that those interested in hammering an improved description read Spitzer's account , and perhaps the other two chapters in that book about this. There are more general concerns (sic) to be addressed about this article first, but eventually I'll give my input on this as well. Just as a quick remark, I think it's fair to say that the debate around the inclusion/exclusion of homosexuality shaped the DSM (and consequently the whole MH field's) approach to mental disorders in general, because it forced an explicit definition of what mental disorder is. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RS for homosexuality as a DSM paraphilia?

I appreciate the (very deep) discussion about how homosexuality was removed from the DSM system. However, the issue would only be relevant to the paraphilia page if homosexuality ever were listed as a paraphilia in the first place, and it was not: The paraphilias did not get included in the DSM until DSM-III, and homosexuality was already removed. In DSM-I, homosexuality was listed as a personality disorder, and in DSM-II, it was listed as what were called "sexual deviations," but never a paraphilia.

So, what exactly is the source that says that homosexuality was ever listed as a paraphilia? Without ever having been listed as a paraphilia, I don't think it merits mention on the paraphilia page.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I support your position. It is utterly nonsense to write about homosexuality in the article about paraphilias, since homosexuality has never been considered so and it is empirically unfounded up to this date. And there is no serious controvery about that. Thus I am removing the section. --Destinero (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that one main role of this section should be to discuss the process of deciding what is or is not a paraphilia, with homosexuality being one case where this wasn't determined by mainstream culture or religion. If there are other cases (with sufficient RS's) we should address them too, and consider changing the subheader. RS's about the decision in well-documented groups other than the APA should also be considered. (Adding a signature the top half of a discussion comment.) BitterGrey (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"RS's about the decision in well-documented groups other than the APA should also be considered." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html (by Gregory M. Herek) http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf (pages 8-14 by the American Psychological Association, the California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers), http://books.google.cz/books?id=lydHmmrHB8QC&lpg=PA37&ots=-XQ4JCraoE&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false, http://books.google.cz/books?id=lydHmmrHB8QC&lpg=PA37&ots=-XQ4JCraoE&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q&f=false (pages 32-38).

Gonsiorek, J. (1991). The empirical basis for the demise of the illness model of homosexuality. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 115-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. (From the chapter) How can one understand the pathology or nonpathology of homosexuality if one does believe in the reasonableness of psychiatric diagnosis? My perspective is that psychiatric diagnosis is legitimate, but its application to homosexuality is erroneous and invalid because there is no empirical justification for it. The diagnosis of homosexuality as an illness is bad science. Therefore, whether one accepts or rejects the plausibility of the diagnostic enterprise in psychiatry, there is no basis for viewing homosexuality as a disease or as indicative of psychological disturbance. It is my conclusion that the issue of whether homosexuality per se is a sign of psychopathology, psychological maladjustment, or disturbance has been answered, and the answer is that it is not. The studies reviewed and the findings in this chapter ought to be the touchstone of further theory and research in the study of homosexuality, because they represent the most carefully designed, reliable, valid, and objective measures of adjustment in the armamentarium of the behavioral sciences. Although it is clear that homosexuality is not in and of itself related to psychopathology, there are persistent suggestions that the particular stresses endured by gay men and lesbians, especially in adolescence and young adulthood, may cause an upsurge in attempted suicide and perhaps chemical abuse, perhaps temporary or perhaps in a segment of homosexuals. They do not suggest the inherent psychopathology of homosexuality; rather they suggest additional especially stressful developmental events in the lives of some gay men and lesbians that require theoretical explication. (page 54 http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf) "The Royal College of Psychiatrists wishes to clarify that homosexuality is not a psychiatric disorder. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association concluded there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder and removed it from its diagnostic glossary of mental disorders. The International Classification of Diseases of the World Health Organization followed suit in 1992. There is now a large body of research evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment." http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS01_2010x.pdf "The experiences of discrimination in society and possible rejection by friends, families and others, such as employers, means that some LGB people experience a greater than expected prevalence of mental health and substance misuse problems. Although there have been claims by conservative political groups in the USA that this higher prevalence of mental health difficulties is confirmation that homosexuality is itself a mental disorder, there is no evidence whatever to substantiate such a claim." http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf "Is homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem? No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem. However negative attitudes towards homosexuality can result in gay and lesbian people having negative thoughts about themselves, which can result in emotional and/or social problems. In the past, homosexuality was thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information about homosexuality. Most of that information came from studies that only involved lesbians and gay men undergoing therapy for problems. When researchers examined data about gay people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was found to be untrue. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new research by removing the term ‘homosexuality’ from the official manual that lists all mental and emotional disorders. In 1975, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this action and additional research findings have subsequently reaffirmed this decision. All mental health professionals are now urged to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation." http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/orientation/#s4 "Five years of study by a task force assigned to overhaul China's classifications of mental illness led to the new approach, which was unanimously approved by the psychiatric association's standing committee last month. Part of the task force's research included contact with the American Psychiatric Assn., which urged the Chinese group to change its stance. The APA struck homosexuality from its own list of mental diseases in 1973, in a landmark step in the fight against discrimination against gays and lesbians in the U.S." http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/06/news/mn-33985 --Destinero (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As for DSM II, the first printing of DSM II was in 1968. The vote to remove homosexuality in 1973 was implemented in the seventh printing of DSM II in 1974. BitterGrey (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources state that homosexuality was once considered a paraphilia. Please do not remove reliable sources. Verifiability, not truth. The term "paraphilia" existed before the DSM, as did the term "homosexuality," as did the notion that homosexuality was a paraphilia, per sources. DSM is not the be-all and end-all of "paraphilia," even if an editor involved in its revision has convinced a few people here that it is. Jokestress (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, prior to DSM III, even pedophilia wasn't grouped as a paraphilia. Maybe the APA hadn't adopted the term yet. However, it was used by others. E.g: "The two most important forms of paraphilia are homosexuality and " Now, if we are done with the technicalities...BitterGrey (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality was removed in the DSM-III and paraphilias were introduced as a distinct subclass also in DSM-III, so in DSM terms it is indeed impossible that homosexuality was ever officially described as a paraphilia. I know little about pre DSM-III use of the term paraphilia, so I can't comment on research uses of olde (yet). I don't think we should make a big a deal of this either way though. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

However, this article is not only about the DSM-III (and subsequent) defs. Practically any historically informed source about paraphilias discusses the sexual deviances from DSM-I and II as quintessentially equivalent to the DSM-III paraphilias. So, homosexuality has its historical place on this page, with appropriate sources, despite some editors' sensitivities. I've added some sections to that effect. However, I'm not convinced at all that we need a separate section for homosexuality, even under "general concerns". The general structure of the article also needs some work. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've checked Homosexuality#Mental, and unfortunately it has very little detail on this, less than what we have here. I'm still pondering if a separate article on the removal of homosexuality from the DSM and other mental illness classifications might be a better approach. I recently discovered this paper of Richard Green, in which he writes:

But it took nearly two decades for psychoanaltic assosciations

to come around. Wedded to its pivolat tenets--castration fear,

penis envy, and unresolved Oedipal conflict drivig the sick

homosexual--homosexual sex was hard to swallow .

Imagine Christianity's predicament if newer evidence revealed Mary

to have had the androgen insensitivity syndrome (no uterus).

I also found a little something about the Chinese system; they removed homosexuality in 2001 according toHomosexuality_in_China#Modern_China. I wasn't able to find anything else about other paraphilias in their system (which is of course considerably more politically motivated than those in the West.) Tijfo098 (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight for DSM

As evidenced above, there's been an attempt to frame all of this article in terms of the DSM POV. There's almost no mention of legal or social issues, and very little on the many theories about it. I have split out the DSM section so we can combine all of the material about it there. Then I propose a significant expansion so this isn't so heavily biased. Jokestress (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it's perhaps better to tag the entire article. I don't think the DSM section had/has too much information. It had nothing on DSM I to III, which prompted confusion in the section above. This article is not a snipped of a clinical manual, so some historical information is needed, and that includes the evolution of the concept across the DSM editions. By all means, add other aspects to balance the article out of "clinicalness". I'll add some myself, but I don't have a lot material on hand about wider issues. If we end up with too much material overall, we can always create sub-articles (e.g. Clinical view of paraphilias), but moving stuff prematurely will result in "POV fork" cries from some editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Another option would be to place the additional DSM history in the DSM article. Of course, this isn't a perfect option either. We'd need to keep some of it here, such when the APA started to include the term/category "paraphilia." On that note, I'd like to think that those of us, especially those who claim to be experts, won't again try to shift the article towards their POV using maneuvers based on semantic technicalities (i.e. shenanigans). BitterGrey (talk) 05:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Another option would be to place the additional DSM history in the DSM article": No. Imagine we added the history of all mental disorder diagnoses (even just diagnostic categories) to the DSM article. You'd get something like all the editions of the DSM combined. Clearly impractical. The DSM article even has sub-articles for certain editions. Insofar this article doesn't even trigger the Misplaced Pages:Article size warning (like some other do). I have a few more additions from that book, and they're more in the direction that Jokestress asked for. I added the extra DSM stuff first to quell the controversy above. You (the readers of this talk page) can help because most of the book is readable though google books. That's how I found out about it, although now I have copy. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

An idea what to remove

I propose to remove the bullet-ed list containing the 1-2 line definitions of various paraphilias from DSM-IV-TR. First, people can just click on the names due to the nature of the wiki, and more importantly those are not accurate descriptions of diagnostic criteria, which is what the DSM-IV-TR defines as paraphilias. It's downright weird to source the "DSM definitions" from ICD-10, English dictionaries, and papers from 1910. Fixing those will probably increase the size of that material, which can be found elsewhere on Misplaced Pages anyway. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That list doesn't take up much space, and is an implicit reminder that 'paraphilia' is a category of distinct, non-interchangeable, specific conditions; not a condition in itself. While it may be hard to believe, there are some here who don't accept this, and assert that all non-"normals" are in some tangled 'queer' ball, while asserting that they themselves are "normal." BitterGrey (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Outlines

There has been a lot of material added recently, and it seems reasonable to give some thought to the article's overall organization. I've included one possible structure for discussion:

General concerns (please suggest a better title)(this part would cover the general group)

..terminological (+Eulenberg quote )

..intensity and specificity (less paragraph 2)

Classification (this part would cover the specific types of paraphilia, current and historic) (now 'classificational' +paragraph 2 of 'intensity and specificity', +current DSM list, -Eulenberg quote )

..homosexuality (history)

..DSM (history)

...DSM I, etc.

..(new section on ICD, etc?)

Treatment (now 'drug treatment', plus maybe new material on not seeking treatment, shock therapy)

..hormonal

..psychoactive

Please let me know if a sandbox prototype would make the structure easier to visualize.BitterGrey (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the many "phenomenon vs. term" problems that plagues every article on human sexuality. The phenomenon predates the term, so we need to provide historical context on how this term came into use for the phenomenon. We need to cover sin models, followed by the eugenics-based suite of current models: crime models, disease models, and hybrid medico-legal models. We then need to look at criticism of each model, including work on "paraphilia" as a social construction. Right now this article is almost entirely about one disease model and the "cures" advocated by one trade group. There are a number of schemes developed by theorists which are not covered now, and almost no criticism of the concept. Jokestress (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

True. The treatment section is particularly unbalanced - it seems to address only modern efforts to neutralize pedophilia, without mentioning the trend toward accepting (not treating) the other paraphilias or the barbaric methods previously used. BitterGrey (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

About ICD

There's not much to be said about ICD unfortunately. Having recently worked on Spitzer's bio (which was another epic fail at NPOV, and still is to a lesser extent), I came across this paper of his, in which he says the ICD-9 is basically useless for lacking diagnostic criteria, and that ICD-10 is basically a copy of DSM-III-R when it comes to mental disorders. Granted we could still add its classification here, assuming it's not too belabored. A secondary source with commentary on paraphilias in ICD would be nice, but so far I was unable to find one. Most of the research is done in the US/Canada, so most papers only bother with the DSM. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Simple" def and List of...

I've been doing some reading looking for a simple, non-vague def that might be useful in the introduction both here and at List of paraphilias, but alas no such thing exists. But I did find sources saying that it doesn't, so at least we can add that obs here. Please see Talk:List of paraphilias#Definition for more. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly that would be a useful addition: All the current sources of definition for this article have one thing in common: They are presenting a definition (usually their own) and inherently asserting that there is a definition. BitterGrey (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Extended pedophilia discussion

I've removed Flyer22's addition because the main topic of this article is not pedophilia. The discussion about pedophilia leading to the DSM-5 draft is relevant here to extent that it affected the defition/nomenclature of all paraphilias. Otherwise we'd have to include all failed proposals here, including Green's, which is also mentioned by Blanchard, just to maintain NPOV. Here's Blanchard's text:

Both Green (2002) and O’Donohue et al. call special attention

to the ‘‘contented pedophile’’ (O’Donohue et al., 2000, p.

104), although Green would solve the problem by taking

pedophilia out of the DSM, whereas O’Donohue et al. would

solve the problem by taking Criterion B out of the DSM.

Here's Flyer22's text:

O'Donohue, however, took the issue in a different direction, suggesting instead that the diagnostic criteria be

simplified to the attraction to children alone if ascertained by self-report, laboratory findings, or past behavior. He

points out that any sexual attraction to children is pathological and that distress is irrelevant, noting "this sexual

attraction has the potential to cause significant harm to others and is also not in the best interests of the

individual."

Flyer22's addition fails NPOV in relation to the secondary source (Blanchard). Having seen Flyer22 in action around here, I dare say this is typical of his POV pushing, just look the talk page of pedophlia for much more of the same.

Also, if we do include detailed discussion of the proposed changes for perdophlia here, we should logically also include detailed changes proposed for all other paraphilias. This is clearly WP:UNDUE, and would bloat that section tremendously. Details about DSM-5 changes to specific paraphilias should go on their respective wiki pages. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if we are going to detail the changes to pedophilia here, we need to detail the changes to all the paraphilias here. In particular, this is because pedophilia is a bad example because it has a unique criterion B. Per the DSM5 draft, fetishists, masochists, sadists, etc. can look at pictures and read stories without being diagnosed with a disorder. Pedophiles cannot. Fetishism or masochism would make better examples if an example is necessary.

As for NPOV, the first paragraph of the current DSM5 section would only be appropriate if those mentioned were focused exclusively on pedophilia, ignorant of and inattentive to all the other paraphilias. (Well, except for a diligent advocacy that homosexuality was never a paraphilia.) Given my limited dealings with them, I fear that it might be appropriate.

We can avoid both debates by cutting all references that are specific only to pedophilia, and focusing on the changes in DSM5 that affect all paraphilias. This is, after all, the paraphilia article. BitterGrey (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote that section, I wanted to give some context why the change hapened, and I was aware only of the pedophilia paper as discussing the context, but later I found that the DSM-5 itself has a fairly detailed explanation, which while citing Blanchard's pedophilia paper and mostly reproducing his reasoning, doesn't give pedophilia as an example in that particular footnote. So, to avoid mission creep here, it is perhaps best to basically leave just the 2nd paragraph presently in that section, by removing all mention of pedophilia in it. It needs a bit of rewriting in that case. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I am female. And there was no POV-pushing going on with "my" addition, since I do not agree with O'Donohue...if he happens to include all minors and only a hint of sexual attraction rather than the preference. I added Legitimus's write-up, as stated in my edit summary. The POV-pushing was saying that there is controversy surrounding pedophilia's current criteria; I saw/still see no controversy, only criticism, and tweakd it to such. Good to see the "controversy" aspect has been removed. And the Pedophilia talk page? It's covered with everyone's POV; Misplaced Pages talk pages usually are, including this one. Flyer22 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Paraphilias as "replacement" for sodomy/perversion

I see that one source does say paraphilias are a "replacement" for the legal construct, but that can be misinterpreted as replacing them on the law books, which didn't fully happen, except for somewhat recent laws for the civil commitment of sexual offenders past their criminal sentence. (That source says that the "replacement" happened in the DSM, but that's also wrong, because the term replaced there was "sexual deviation".) Also, sodomy was on the statue books in a fair number of US states for quite some time. The other source doesn't frame it as a "replacement" . A better way to say it would be "There was a prolonged transition in the legal system ....", I'll try to find some more accurate source to ref that aspect. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

AJP defines paraphilia?

Can someone expand the cryptic reference "138:210-215" in which the AJP suposedly defines paraphilia? If not, I'm going to remove it, as it's almost certainly someone's paper, not an official position the journal. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It turns out it's this paper by Spitzer. It's certainly misatributed. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Policewomen

What's the name for sexual desire for policewomen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Follgramm3006 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

While I suspect one or more have made up a neologisms seeking naming credit, I'd call it "sexual desire for policewomen." BitterGrey (talk) 05:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be a specific form of uniform fetishism.AerobicFox (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting

Making a note of this, even though I don't have time to work on it right now. From the DSM-IV gurus :

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of another case of "we had no idea our definition could be interpreted that way". Tijfo098 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality removed from the list?

"Up until 1973, sexual attraction to persons of the same sex was included in this list." Citations 13 doesn't mention that it was removed from the list. So why is that citation still there? And where can I check that citations 14, 15 and 16 does mentions that? Alusky (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"Is homosexuality a paraphilia? The evidence for and against"

A new article on this topic has just been published (in Archives of Sexual Behavior), summarizing many of the correlates of the paraphilias. Should anyone decide any of its contents should be integrated into the mainpage, it was published Open Access, so it can be downloaded and circulated freely: . The article contains a very substantial reference list to the primary literature.
— James Cantor (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you promoting your own original research? Someone963852 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No. To avoid a multipage discussion, please make your comments here at COIN or at talk:Homosexuality.

— James Cantor (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Multipage discussion could have been avoided by starting only one discussion, James.

Given marionthelibrarion's previous, blatant violations of COI, it makes sense that his actions be watched carefully. Promoting his own article on multiple talk pages, using the login James Cantor, is within Misplaced Pages policy although not the best of practices. The publication itself would carry more weight if the author were not also on the journal's editorial board.

As for the contents, the article has a critical failing: It does not address diversity within the paraphilias. It assumes homosexuality is not a paraphilia, groups all other paraphilias together, and then contrasts the two. This is analogous to arguing that 'l' is not a letter because it is taller than 'e', or alternatively arguing that 'l' is a letter because it is the same height as 'k'. Both arguments are false, because they neglect the differences among the other letters. Had the paper gathered unbiased data for many separate paraphilias (and homosexuality), and showed how they clustered, it might have been useful. BitterGrey (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality may differ as it may follow the pattern of left handedness arising from a genetic basis , but also decreased brain lateralization caused by excessive prenatal testosterone, or excessive estrogen exposure (polar opposites). That's why one observes the hyper masculine homosexual, like footballer David Kopay , and the more effeminate types like Boy George, and effeminate left handers like Justin Beiber opposed to the more masculine left handers.Sempre30 (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've integrated Cantor's review article in two places, both in the Paraphilia#General concerns section. They are:

Bittergrey has already reverted the first (I've since replaced all citegnoming but left out the initial sentence and citation).

I consider these to be reasonable, brief, attributed summary of a review article in an unarguably reliable source. Are there any policy or guideline-based objections to the use of the citation? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As is clear from his comment at the main discussion, WLU's determination to cite this article preceded his actually having read the article: "I'll read and integrate it". He has yet to engage us in discussing the merits of the article; the question of IF it should be cited at all. BitterGrey (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As a reliable, secondary source published in a mainstream, high-impact, highly pertinent journal addressing a single specific question very relevant to this page - I don't really see any issue in citing it. The same way I would cite, without any real thought on the matter, a review article on the genetics of autism on the autism page.

Are there any issues of my summary of the article?

The version added by KimvdLinde is much more definitive than the version I put in, with much less detail - but I don't have an issue with it.

I do think the information I added here is worth including and I can't see any reason for it to be removed. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 00:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

KimvdLinde and myself cut your attempt to add a new paragraph dedicated to Cantor and multiple citations down to one sentence and one citation, which I think is extremely generous. You should be grateful. I would have prefered the complete removal of your effort to promote James Cantor, which appears to have been supported by no one but you and Cantor. Have you even read the article yet? I've posted my reservations about the article's critical internal flaw (the "e" vs "k" thing) and external flaw (since the author is on the journal's review board, how much critical review did it actually receive?) above. You had the option of addressing my concerns. You chose to fight instead, having already decided to promote Cantor and his article before even reading the article. You might want to gratefully cut your losses before we find a source for KimvdLinde's point that isn't PRIMARY. BitterGrey (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think adding a single line confirming that the most recent research confirms the position of the APA to remove it from the DSM as correct was actually missing from the section it was added to. As such, I think it is fine. I read the article, and beyond a few rather general aspects such as age of onset that are shared with many developmental changes, it is confirmatory that the current state of our knowledge is that they are two separate phenomena. I personally don't care who wrote it, it should be treated the same way as all other sources. And as I said, having a confirmation that homosexuality is not a paraphylia at the end of the section discussing it is a good thing. I am more wondering whether there are other substantial articles conforming the same thing? -- Kim van der Linde 01:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Note about the primary. The rules abour secondary versus primary are in place to beat back original research in certain fields. In many many articles, primary sources are used and I have no problem with that. -- Kim van der Linde 01:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I explicitly attributed it to Cantor because it's new and synthesizing a novel hypothesis, but I have no problem leaving it as is. I still think there is value in noting Cantor's statement that there is no objective criteria for defining a paraphilia versus a variant sexual interest. Kim, do you have any opinion on that? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the hypothesis is actually very old, and discredited in the 70-ies. Hence the removal of it from the DSM. In psychology, there are often no clear criteria separating things, so I am not surprised about his statement regarding this. I think we have to keep in mind here that the Clarck Institute has a history of pathologizing human sexual behavior, and in that context, this study is nothing unusual. But if we take you assertion that it is a novel hypothesis, it should be more than enough pause to you about including it. -- Kim van der Linde 03:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked for other sources, and there isn't much recent discussion about whether homosexuality is a paraphilia or not. Even Cantor's paper needed to conclude "although homosexuality is probably better said to be distinct from the paraphilias, that conclusion is still quite tentative." Since the definition of paraphilia is changing in DSM V, I don't expect much work to go into whether it fits into the old definition. Other than relying on something "new and synthesizing a novel hypothesis", could we simply state that the academic consensus has remained that homosexuality should not be categorized as a paraphilia? We could cite the DSM if we needed to cite an established source to show that homosexuality still isn't on the list.

The implication that I'd like to avoid is that all the paraphilias are similar (or 'all paraphilias except homosexuality'). While not stated in his paper, this is inherent in Cantor's argument. BitterGrey (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I already expected no other current research on this topic as it is a revival of an old and discredited idea.-- Kim van der Linde 03:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

have a look here: Charles Moser book section -- Kim van der Linde 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

pgs 100-101? Seems like a worthwhile source. Could it be summarized by something along the lines of "while the traditional category of paraphilia is being questioned, the exclusion of homosexuality from that category has been largely unquestioned since its removal from the DSM in 1980"? By the way, a 2011 article offers an update. Google scholar returns either the book or the article near the top, depending on whether the search was limited to after 2005. BitterGrey (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding article content, it's more accurate to say that definitions of paraphilia have been rewritten to exclude homosexuality. The article in question appears to be part of a new front in POV pushing, where SPAs and other conflicted Misplaced Pages editors create articles off-wiki with specific hopes of getting them inserted into Misplaced Pages articles (or influencing Misplaced Pages content). I see the editor in question has done this seven times in recent months, promoting himself and his beliefs. It's hard to assume good faith in the context of that behavior, even though this most recent trend is not in violation of any policies. This specific attempt is clearly titled to suggest an objective airing of two points of view, but it doesn't even cite the many people whose work discusses the connection between theoretical and historical definitions of homosexuality and paraphilia, including Sigmund Freud, Benjamin Karpman, Emil Gutheil, Anil Aggrawal, and Martin Kafka, all cited in the Misplaced Pages article. Dan Karasic and Jack Drescher have discussed the history of attempting to distinguish homosexuality from other paraphilias when the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. Some observers have written that it is a political act. You'd never know the positions of other viewpoints from reading the article in question; it's simply an apologia for the author's POV. Jokestress (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

True. The consensus seems to be that Cantor's is an at-best primary reference with baggage, to be replaced when better references come along. KimvdLinde proposed a book section and I proposed a first pass for some text summarizing it that might make everyone happy. (Well, except for those who's sole objective is to cite Cantor.) What are your thoughts on these? BitterGrey (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The language in there, especially "confirmed," has way too much POV. I'm in a quandary, because describing the capabilities of the author and his off-wiki work in the most accurate way would seem to some an NPA issue here. This paper makes up new half-assed terminology and was conceived of and written to support a foregone conclusion. This editorial is written by a gay activist whose life's work has often revolved around classifying gay men into pedophiles and non-pedophiles. In this paper, he classifies sexuality into "good love" (euphilia - a word he just made up) and something else, presumably "bad love" (dysphilia). Unsurprisingly, he once again finds his own sexuality to be "good," where someone attracted to, say, adult transgender people, is a mentally ill paraphilic. This is largely about his attempts to rewrite the Karen Franklin article on Misplaced Pages. She's a rival psychologist who hurt the author's feelings by pointing out that this kind of diagnostic pretextuality has dire implications in forensic psychology.

We should not include it. It's a problematic paper that introduces novel/WP:FRINGE ideology and makes extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. If there is consensus to include it, I think we should quote the paper with something like "Psychologist James Cantor stated that 'homosexuality has a pattern of correlates largely, but not entirely, distinct from that identified among the paraphilias.'" I say we use that as a placeholder as a first order of business if we aren't going to remove it for now. The second order of business is to get consensus as to whether this article merits inclusion. I vote no, because of the introduction of problematic new ideas that are highly biased. Perhaps a straw poll or a chat at the RS noticeboard is in order. Jokestress (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm...Cantor being on the editorial board puts a different spin on the source and the RSN might be a good idea. Re-reading the article itself, it does indeed "suggest" (Cantor's word) a distinction rather than confirm it. Attribution and a softer wording both seem a good idea. I'd normally do it myself but there's a pretty good chance I'll just get reverted. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 22:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So basically WLU determined that he would cite the article, then edit warred to cite it, and now might have finally read it. An RS/N discussion would be pointless, since as discussed below, WLU ignores RS/N discussions that don't support Cantor and his colleagues. Additionally, RS/N would only comment on whether the article should be removed due to unreliability. Since the apparent consensus (at least among those who read it first) is already to replace the source, RS/N input would be moot. BitterGrey (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Any objections to text along the lines of "while the traditional category of paraphilia is being questioned, the exclusion of homosexuality from that category has been largely unquestioned since its removal from the DSM" cited to New directions in sex therapy: innovations and alternatives, pgs 100-101, as a replacement? I'm open to alternatives, of course. BitterGrey (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Med Hypotheses

Medical Hypotheses is not a reliable source that can be used casually, the journal explicitly exists to include speculative ideas far from the mainstream. It should not be used as a serious reference, particularly since it is redundant to actual reliable sources earlier in the paragraph. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 01:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To quote AerobicFox from RS/N, regarding a particular chapter by Cantor, Blanchard, et. al. "This source has a variety of WP:REDFLAGs, the preface of this textbook states "it is aimed primarily at graduate students taking a first course in adult psychopathology ... chapter authors were given considerable latitude"(emph mine). The chapter author of this particular chapter, Ray Blanchard, sources this theory to his own published work in 1993.". In spite of this, WLU, you fought and argued endlessly to make that source the most cited in the paraphilic_infantilism article. Since both sources involve considerable latitude given in the hopes of bringing novel theories to print, I'm willing to meet you halfway: We'll remove both sources. BitterGrey (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see what that does to make Med hypotheses a reliable source. I'll bring this up at WP:RSN. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is already at least one discussion 1, but I've started a new one here. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is about as reliable as one source WLU not only used, but used NINE times in one article, even when irrelevant. WLU is yet again fighting for a Cantor/CAMH source and fighting against a comparable non-Cantor/non-CAMH source. Next (since I won't be here all day to defend the article) I suspect WLU will continue ignore RS/N's comments about the Cantor/CAMH source, and use any RS/N comment as an excuse to re-remove the non-Cantor/non-CAMH source. WLU has already demonstrated how unimportant reliability is to him; once he cited a Misplaced Pages reprint marketed by a diaper company as an RS. WLU, you are implementing a double standard. BitterGrey (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on this discussion of the source in addition to the initial section linked above, it's pretty clear that Med Hypotheses isn't a reliable source; fortunately the page content doesn't suffer because there is already a second source to verify the text. If the author of the article published his/her arguments in a separate, acceptably reliable source, please feel free to cite that. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, this journal, however interesting, is specifically and deliberately and by editorial intent a place for publishing unconfirmed hypotheses. not for publishing scientific data or conclusions. There is a purpose in publishing such material--the conceivable case that they might be worth investigating, the suggestive value for other ideas, a way for people to publish such ideas with having them shoehorn into what would otherwise be scientific articles. The journal provides a publication venue that can not be confused with actual science. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

History list deletion discussion

Cantor's post above was one of three. The second was at homosexuality regarding the same journal article, and the third at COI/N regarding the first two. To try to answer a question at the COI/N discussion, I started a list of where Cantor was being named and cited using Google, and used wikiblame to find who did it. My intent was to gather history and see if there were any patterns. For example, does WLU do this often?

DGG, who has stated a lack of neutrality and that he is "too involved", requested the speedy deletion of that list of diffs. The discussion of that deletion (which for some reason did not occur before the deletion) is here. DGG has yet to share why he considers those diffs so dangerous. BitterGrey (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to this page. Cantor's article is a reliable source, it was integrated and found acceptable by multiple editors, and I've seen absolutely no valid reason to remove it. I don't see why Cantor as an editor or author is still being discussed, nor can I see any reason for an utterly irrelevant deletion review is being brought up. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, WLU, multiple editors needed to restrain your attempt to promote Cantor. Good editors shouldn't be finding "different spins" AFTER the edit war - but carefully read the sources BEFORE. Yes, you didn't see why he should be discussed or evaluated - you just promoted him. Your biased promotion is the perfect example of why that list is not only relevant, but necessary. BitterGrey (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good editors often disagree on how to properly summarize and integrate sources as part of the consensus making process. My initial integration, which used an attributed and softened summary of the paper, was replaced by an unattributed, much more absolute version, by another editor. And now we have consensus.

It's hardly promotion to add a relevant, reliable, secondary source by an unambiguous expert to a page. That would seem to be little more than regular editing. I've yet to see any evidence that your objections are in line with the policies and guidelines or that any outside input from various boards have been sought and found to agree with you. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 12:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the "nobody agrees with BitterGrey" counterargument again. When WLU wrote Cantor (by name) into paraphilic infantilism, FiachraByrne removed it. When WLU wrote Cantor (by name) into paraphilia, KimvdLinde removed it. That is two for two, unless WLU has added Cantor by name into any other articles and had it removed by someone else. It would seem more that nobody agrees with WLU's promotion of Cantor. Perhaps that is why WLU is so eager to get the history deleted or dismissed as irrelevant. BitterGrey (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

When a comment is not attributed, it's assumed to be uncontroversial enough to not present it as a specific person's opinion. Attribution is a weaker way of presenting an argument - rather than "Things are like this", an attributed argument states "This person thinks things are like this". KimvdLinde seems to think, like I do, that there's no need to name a specific person as providing the opinion because, presumably, they think it's uncontroversial (much like on paraphilic infantilism). The only reason I bother attributing statements in situations like these is because you object so strongly to the point. I think it's bad writing to present an uncontroversial point as if it were a minority opinion. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• C-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• C-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• C-Class psychiatry articles
• High-importance psychiatry articles
• Psychiatry task force articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages