Revision as of 13:23, 30 August 2011 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 14d) to User talk:Bittergrey/Archive 2.← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:19, 5 September 2011 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 14d) to User talk:Bittergrey/Archive 2.Next edit → | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|archive = User talk:Bittergrey/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = User talk:Bittergrey/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | }} | ||
== F&B and CB&B == | |||
Hi, I've posted this at ]. It's the only moderately interesting bit and relates to the interpretation of "infantilsm" in those articles. | |||
:Please specify exactly where CBB defines which group in the FB paper are the infantilists. Is it only one group? More than one? All? | |||
::Ans: all infantilists; they do not differentiate or define. The question is what is an infantilist for F&B and CB&B? | |||
::"Freund and Blanchard (1993) referred to this characteristic as an erotic target location error. They hypothesized that erotic target location was a basic dimension of sexual attraction, independent of the nature of the erotic target (object) itself. They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia." (CB&B, 2009:531) | |||
::They define infantilists as those who, "are sexually aroused by behaving or imaging themselves as children or infants." They refer to a further group who "wear diapers while masturbating" and state that it is unknown whether they are hiding imagery of self as baby from clinicians or whether they represent an incomplete form of infantilism as transvestites do of transexualism. | |||
::Ah. I think I see. This took a little while. But if you read their entire description of infantilism and its associated behaviours and desires they do not include ''any'' practices which might be considered masochistic. Also bear in mind Cantor's statement at the RSN that he had never come across a masochistic infantilist in his clinical experience. In my opinion - which is irrelevant but anyway - they are excluding masochists who happen to dress up and/or imagine themselves as babies as they do not see that as entailing an inversion of sexual targeting. Rather "masochistic gynaephiles" have, they assert, a different etiology whose resemblance to those with an ETLE is only "superficial" as their "abberant" self-image is derived from a desire for a relationship of submission to a dominant female. Hence, F&B's paper treats "masochistic gynaephiles" as distinct from infantilists proper. Implicitly, CB&B are advancing their own ETLE theory as a greater organising principle of the paraphilias than a categorisation based upon an attraction for any particular object or whatever.] (]) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Anyhow, while I can't really see how it could be included in the article, I'd be interested in your opinion of this interpretation.] (]) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Hmm. I hadn't before noticed that you and WLU both use the British spelling of "behaviour." | |||
::As for your interpretation, there isn't that much I can say. Any arbitrary sexologist can make up an arbitrary set of terms and categories, and advance them as some new discovery, at about any time he wishes. Unless it has some etilogical significance, such as noting an overrepresentation of Attwood's "cluster of four" among AB/DLs, all that discovery can hope to do is to convey the variety of paraphilias with a reasonable accuracy given the system's complexity. Depending on the interpretation, F&B is more complicated than the DSM, less accurate, or both. ] (]) 01:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, I wasn't commenting on the veracity of the theory but thanks for the reply. ] (]) 03:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:19, 5 September 2011
My Talk Archives | |||
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |