Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:49, 15 August 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of paraphilias article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Definition

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

• I thought some more about this, and I propose we remove the definition, and simply replace it with "widely accepted or proposed in the current literature in the field". First, let me explain why Cantor's (& Blanchard's) definition is no better than any other that has been attempted. The prototypical definition of paraphilia, (e.g. but there are a bazillion variations) defines it as deviation from a "normal" sex. And of course, there's no universally accepted definition for what "normal" (more correctly called normative) sexuality is, which entails no universally accepted definition of a paraphilia. You don't have to take (just) my word for this trivial analysis. There are sources saying that, which I'm going to use in the paraphilia article proper.

• Now, Cantor's definition tries to achieve a few practical objectives:
  • It attempts excludes homosexuality between adults from paraphilias (on a theoretical argument, I mean). But this hinges on the unstated definition of copulatory behavior. On Misplaced Pages at least, copulation is defined to commonly mean only insertion of male organ in the female one. Cantor's def omits the word "normal" (or variations thereof), but this is certainly implied as an adjective in front of copulatory behavior. Without the unstated but implied "normal" adjective, can you answer the question: Is spanking a precopulatory behavior? To some it obviously is, because they have sex afterward! So, those guys have no ascertainable paraphilia, not even for research purposes. The same logic applies to exclude as paraphilias almost everything else in couples that copulate, except for age issues, and the "phenotypically normal" clause.

• • The assumption that copulation, rather that orgasm, is the goal in sex is just funny in the 21st century. If Alice has a hard time with vaginal orgasms, and always uses an external vibrator, e.g. the fabled Hitachi Magic Wand, and she's also a lesbian, she's probably not going to deal with copulation ever; she sticks with "outercourse". In this respect, Cantor's definition is inferior to ones are less precise. Most people in the Western world (Arkansas excluded) would assume that using a vibrator like that is "normal". Of course, you can argue that this is copulatory behavior etc., but there's no objective standard for defining the central pillar of Cantor's definition, so you're back to square one.

• • On the other hand, this definition automatically defines sex with non-adults as a paraphilia. It doesn't even offer an exception if both are non-adults! Again, a vague definition relying on "normal" is superior in this respect too. (Left to their own devices, adolescents usually have sex with each other, despite what some might think.) The goal here seem to be to include hebephilia in the list, a well-known view of the CAMH group, but still controversial outside (at least judging by the unusual number of letters to the editor about that proposal, and I've certainly not included all of them). Of course, the word "adult" is itself rather vague: social adulthood or biological adulthood?

• • Similarly, if Joe likes fat women, midgets or female bodybuilders, then he has a paraphilia. What if he is a midget himself, or fat, or a huge steroid-loaded hulk himself? Does he have to like only phenotypically normal partners then?

• So, this definition fits the program of the CAMH research group, but it's too early to say it's generally accepted (was published in 2009---as I already pointed out above), and my common sense WP:OR says that's not superior to vague ones, and there are sources saying you can't give good one anyway. Coming back to something constructive, the "widely accepted in the current literature in the field" certainly excludes homosexuality, but may not include hebephilia (not yet, anyway). I've read in some paper (forgot which) that in practice, sexual offenders against minors that don't qualify for pedophilia get a "paraphilia NOS (hebephilia)" diagnosis for practical reasons. So, "used in clinical practice" might also be a good discriminant. Now, adding just "proposed" is iffy, because one can fill the list with totally obscure stuff from random papers, as long as they are recent enough. We may need to hammer out a standard for "proposed", but I don't see editors adding deluges of stuff here on a daily basis, so maybe we can defer that work until it's actually needed. The current definition doesn't really prevent people from adding this kind of entries either.

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

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

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

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

"danger wank"

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

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

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

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

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

• Arousal from fantasizing about someone other than one’s partner

• Arousal from partners of other nations or races

• Attraction to partners of another age group

• Sex in a parked car

• Attraction to a person because of a difference in height

• Oral stimulation of the anus

• Anal sex

• Anal sex with a female partner

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

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

• I have my doubts about that source, first of all. I have not been able to find a single review of it, or even a decent citation (look at this). Also, consider Anil Aggrawal, a pretty puffy article--certainly this list aids in exposure. Finally, it's not unreasonable to ask that individual paraphilias be notable and included--not because I hate redlinks or we should avoid them, but because, well, we may well have listcruft here. Seriously--licking lizards? I also agree with many of the contentual comments made above. In short, the IP's edits should be undone, as far as I'm concerned, and the source discredited until we have some proof of its academic standing. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• I started cleanup, but it's kind of tedious. I am removing redlinks sourced only to Aggrawal. Note, for instance, that it contained "androsodomy", getting off on having anal sex with a partner of the same sex. If that's not "normative" then we are back to the days before Freud. And, for crying out loud, look at the last one, "Zwischenstufe". Pardon my French, but that's merde de taureau. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry, androsodomy was anal sex with a male partner. There's a separate term for a female partner, and that's also about to go. What is normal in the eyes of Dr. Aggrawal? Vaginal, missionary, preferably in the dark? Is one allowed to utter a dirty word while engaged? Drmies (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• For shits and giggles: "Aphephilia - Deriving pleasure from being touched". Drmies (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What a mess those additions were. Thank you for the cleanup, Drmies. I certainly agree that only high-quality sources should be used for this list. I might go as far as to say that if it's not in the current DSM, it shouldn't be on here. I see that the attraction to same-sex partners was even actually on the list. Yikes! This source should be removed completely. A complete revert is perfectly justified, in my opinion. Using that source for some entries but not for others is not the way to go. The problem might also be the definition of "paraphilia" in the lead, which is what I originally suggested when starting this section. It was changed from "is defined as powerful and persistent sexual interest other than in copulatory or precopulatory behavior with phenotypically normal, consenting adult human partners" to what it currently says. The previous lead seems more accurate if we are going to list sexual behaviors that are widely considered normal in this day and age. Alternatively, there could be a partial combination of both definitions. So that it doesn't seem odd when the list includes normative sexual stimulation that is not penis-vagina sex. Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, by all means, go for the mass revert. I note that you, me, and the IP (above), that makes three, and no one is protesting (except for the IP who added it, in an edit summary). As for that definition, BitterGrey (section above) changed it but also remarked on what they perceived as a need for change. I personally have no real strong preference one way or the other, though I think that yours was better phrased; besides, I am inclined to not let the DSM have the final word on everything. BTW, my selective edits were roughly rationalized as follows: if it was sourced to Aggrawal but a blue link, I let it stand, unless it was total nonsense (touching, kissing, etc.) and the associated article didn't define it as deviant. If it was sourced to Aggrawal and a redlink, it was out. If it had a second reference to Aggrawal, I removed that one (overlinking). You see, with edits to monstrous articles one is easily accused of vandalism, hence the piecemeal approach, which is of course a drag. So I tried to be on the careful side--but as you can see from the history, the longer it took, the more ridiculous I found it. So please go ahead and rv to the version you pointed at above--before the definition change. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to take a bucket full of vomit to the vampires (some young, some old) I left in the parked car, and then touch someone and maybe even kiss them. Sue me if you can. --Drmies (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored the article away from Aggrawal. Yes, I knew the reasoning behind the way you edited the information. I'm just saying that if we use the Aggrawal source for anything he perceives as a paraphilia, a case can be made that we must also use the Aggrawal source for the other things he perceives as a paraphilia. We aren't allowed to cherry pick a source that way. And about the DSM, I get your point about not having the DSM have the last word. But in cases like this one (the Aggrawal case), it is clear that we cannot just allow any source's assertion into this article...WP:Reliable source or not. The Aggrawal source may pass Misplaced Pages's standard on reliable sources, but it clearly is not reliable (per the concerns expressed above). It's beyond idiotic that he would include touching. Say what? I'm not understanding this source at all. Flyer22 (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In my defense: it's not Aggrawal that moved me to leave some of them in there--it's the bluelinked quality. After all, this is also a list, and different opinions on lists are current here: one of them is (for instance in lists of "Notable inhabitants") that inclusion should be based on the sourcing in the bluelinked article. Of course, many of those bluelinked articles are unverified one- or two-sentenced stubs. But I have no problem with a grand reversal.

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

For what it's worth, my experience has been that Aggrawal published a very broad list, but mutliple vandals on this page have still nonsense and just added Aggrawal as a ref, imiating other entries. I haven't checked whether Aggrawal actually made every statement attributed to him, but I suspect its worth checking.— James Cantor (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, yes, I saw that you were removing things based on whether or not a listing was a bluelink, just as much as whether or not it was pure silliness. No worries there.

Thanks for your input, James. I was hoping you would weigh in. I don't want you to become annoyed by me asking you to weigh in on things, so I decided to pass on that this time. My concern, of course, is Aggrawal's "very broad list." I mean, if he lists any of the above silliness, then how can we take him seriously? Are any of those things actually considered paraphilias by experts? And if so, how can things that are largely considered normative sexual stimulation (such as arousal from fantasizing about someone other than one’s partner, arousal from partners of other nations or races, oral sex, anal sex) be considered paraphilias? Is it because paraphilia is not only about listing attractions that are not normal...but also about listing attractions that are non-copulatory or do not intend to be (as in sexual attraction to non-reproductive organs or some other feature of a person that has nothing to do with the sexual organs)? And if that's the case (which it seems to be, since even attraction to breasts and buttocks are on the list), shouldn't the lead be tweaked in some way I suggested above? It's very odd to have the main definition in the lead regulated to attraction that is "not normal"...but then have this list include attractions that are largely considered normal. Flyer22 (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Weird or Wonderful Paraphila?

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

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

DSM definition of paraphilic infantilism and fetishism

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

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

One interesting note. Money's 1984 paper defining his set of terms (sometimes called Moneyisms, "Paraphilias: Phenomenology and Classification" in Am j of psychotherapy, Vol XXXVIII No 2) gives a one word definition for autonepiophilia, "diaperism" (pg 167). Pg 171 mentions it among the fetish paraphilias: "A diaper fetish (autonepiophilia) has a similar early origin." In 1984, he grouped it in the category "fetish paraphilias". In the 1988 book cited, pg 259 offers a slightly different definition. "autonepiophilia: a paraphilia of the stigmatic/eligibilic type... Autonepiophilia may be adjunctive to masochistic discipline and humiliation." However, it still seems to be listed among the "fetishistic and talismanic phylisms" (pg 96).

Money's change between 1984 and 1988 might have been in deference to the DSM IIIR definition of paraphilic infantilism, published in 1987.BitterGrey (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The DSM's discussion is clearly a description of a behaviour within the context of masochism. That single sentence does not define paraphilic infantilism. This was discussed on the RSN and several other accounts have disagreed with you (here, FiachraByrne, James Cantor, FuFoFuEd, me). The DSM should not be cited, other sources including Money's are appropriate. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, minutes before your forum shopping to try to trump the third opinion request, you wrote "The DSM doesn't discuss paraphilic infantilism, period. All references to it should be removed. I've got pages 568-573, I've read them all, paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear." Why should the folks here believe you over what they can see with their own eyes? It is quite clearly there in black and white, page 572 in 4TR. It has been there (although at a different page number) since IIIR. BitterGrey (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

That page is where the discussion of infantilism in the context of masochism, which FiachraByrne, James Cantor, FuFoFuEd and myself agreed did not apply to paraphilic infantilism. Yes, the word infantilism appears, but only as a behaviour in the context of masochism. This is the point made repeatedly to you, so please accept it and move on. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 11:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU, if others are willing to support you in your anti-DSM campaign (which now extends to fetishism, not even discussed at RSN and with its own section in the DSM), why do you feel that you personally need to make the edit? Why not wait a little while and let someone else do it? You are now at 3RR for the second time in this campaign. BitterGrey (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we are both edit warring and I realize this. We're both at or close to 3RR, making your warning more than a little hypocritical. The difference is, my edits are supported by policies and guidelines, as well as sources. Wearing diapers, like infantilism, is discussed in the DSM as a behaviour of masochists rather than as a separate issue. The DSM does not discuss medical need, it discusses being forced to wear diapers as part of a sexual attraction to humiliation. This has been pointed out to you as an inappropriate citation of the DSM on the RSN, can you explain to me why it should remain? Within masochism, the sexual attraction is to humiliation, not the diaper itself. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at List of paraphilias. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

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

1. Carolyn Latteier, 1998. (p. 117).

• All unassessed articles
• List-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• List-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Top-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests