Talk:List of paraphilias - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jokestress (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 22 August 2012 (→Current and former opinions on what counts as a paraphilia should be in the table or in a separate table: reply to trystan). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:21, 22 August 2012 by Jokestress (talk | contribs) (→Current and former opinions on what counts as a paraphilia should be in the table or in a separate table: reply to trystan)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Article policies

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

	Psychology portal 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

	Human sexuality portal 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.

voyeurism

Can any of these which involve an act, also define someone who just watches, not necessarily does it themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.38.183 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question and I dont know the answer but there is a way to define exaclty what is being referred to precisely say voyeuristic watching without participation of fetish 'x' as "voyeuristic 'x'" and the problem of defining it at least is then solved. 122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC).

X vs Paraphilic X?

Listing paraphilic masochism under paraphilic masochism wouldn't make sense, because most would look for it under "M", not "P". With only one exception, infantilism, the list is "X", not "Paraphilic X". Most who are looking for infantilism would look under I, not P. What are others' thoughts on moving it to "infantilism, paraphilic" or some other option that would be under "I"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittergrey (talk • contribs) 12:35, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the DSM, because you know the consensus is it does not.

I've decapitalized because it's not a proper noun, see MOS:CAPS.

I would say keep it as "Paraphilic ____" but alphabetize according to the ___ but I don't care that much. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That citation was originally added by James Cantor, not by me. WLU has repeated his "absolutely_unnecessary" accusations many times, neglecting that in this case, it would have involved time travel and mind control. His accusations list neglects his own campaign, including the request to remove all reference to the DSM (except for one page) from this article.

Had there actually been some mass consensus against the edit, why did WLU feel the need to revert me personally? Given how much effort he's dedicated to his anti-BitterGrey campaign, I guess I should be flattered. Sadly, he has yet to take the time to get his facts straight: For example, I'm not capable of either mind control or time travel, and I'm not the one who added this citation originally, no matter how much WLU would like to blame me for it. Now would someone who isn't on some anti-BitterGrey campaign (or in the gang of someone who is) care to comment? BitterGrey (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Not-necessarily wrong edit cited to wrong source.

Malitz, 1966: "Dynamically the patient's diaper perversion appeared to symbolize a regression to infancy in order to reclaim the love of his mother..." (The author also calls it a diaper compulsion, diaper fetish, ...)
Pate, 2003: "The diaper fetish obviously led us to consider paraphilia as Mr. A's central diagnosis.
Money, "Paraphilias: Phenomenology and Classification" American Journal of Psychotherapy, April 1984: "A diaper fetish (autonepiophilia) has a similar early origin..." (p. 171)

These authors did not distinguish between diaper fetishes and infantilism. There is, however, an RS that does: The DSM lists infantilism as 302.83 (a type of masochism, pg 572-573), while fetishes are 302.81 (fetishism, of course, pg 569-570). ( And yes, WLU, there is no arguing it - the DSM does define infantilism . ) If there is interest in separating the two, we need to cite a source that actually does separate the two.

The reason for the migration in Money's definition of autonepiophilia from diaper fetish in 1984 towards infantilism in 1986 suggests that he was aware of the new term before it was formally published in the DSM in 1987. While there is a migration, he still does not fully separate the two. "Another younger variant is infantilism, also known as diaperism and autonepiophilia. In both juvenilism and infantilism the garments have fetishistic significance." ( pg 66, Lovemaps, 1986). BitterGrey (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The DSM doesn't distinguish between diaper fetishism and infantilism . Citing edits made by James Cantor in 2008 ignores this 2011 comment. Taormino's Village Voice article makes the distinction, I'll replace it. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone else has is bothered by the cherrypicking going on here, feel free to say so.

I've exchanged emails with Russ and he knows what he is talking about. "He sees the Adult Babies/Diaper Lovers (AB/DL) community as made up of four specific, yet overlapping, groups: adult babies, sissy babies, diaper lovers, and s/m diaper players." Of course, even this source describes them as "overlapping." Care to try again?

Also, are you now going to move "adult baby syndrome" over to "diaper fetish", since its defining MEDRS (pate, 2003) describes it as a diaper fetish? BitterGrey (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless all individuals who wear diapers for sexual/erotic reasons rather than medical ones also role-play and fantisize they are infants, it is important to distinguish the two. Though the two paraphiliac groups have considerable overlap, they are not identical and the distinction between the two is a relatively easy one to make - and should be made. If a better source makes it, then it should be integrated. The distinction should be made here, the discussion of overlaps should be made in the diaper fetishism and paraphilic infantilism pages. This is merely a list. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 13:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WLU, Are you going to move "adult baby syndrome" over to "diaper fetish", since its defining MEDRS (pate, 2003) describes it as a diaper fetish? According to the RS's provided here, that is the right category for it. If "adult baby syndrome" isn't going to be in the correct list entry, it shouldn't be on the list.BitterGrey (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Adult baby syndrome is a synonym for paraphilic infantilism, as noted in the text and sourced to Pate & Gabbard. They do not consider either synonymous with diaper fetishism. Diaper fetishism is not the same thing as paraphilic infantilism, though there are obviously infantilists who are also diaper fetishists and diaper fetishists who are also infantilists. I consider this the sort of thing for which we normally wouldn't need a reference, but the list is certainly improved by having one, even if it's just a newspaper. Using Pate & Gabbard to distinguish between paraphilic infantilism and diaper fetishism seems inappropriate, though not as inappropriate as using the DSM. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Homosexuality should not be on this list

In this edit, an editor added homosexuality to this list. In my opinion, though not to completely go against WP:Assume good faith, it may have been added in a way so that not much attention would be drawn to it, such as titling part of the edit summary "homophilia." Either way, this is complete nonsense. This article is titled List of paraphilias. Not List of past and present paraphilias. Even with the note that homosexuality was once thought of as a paraphilia, it doesn't belong on this list. Most researchers have declared that this attraction is normal. The very normal/common attraction to breasts is also on this list, which is ludicrous, and is why I took the time to clarify that such attraction is normal after an editor cut away that information again. Normal attractions shouldn't be on this list. And I'm contacting editors at the Homosexuality article and ones at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies about the homosexuality listing. 109.123.127.204 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to see that the breasts entry was removed. 109.123.127.204 (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"List of paraphilias" makes no specification of current status. We could break out past and current into separate parts in the same list or otherwise mark them. If we want to remove homosexuality entirely (a POV move if you ask me), we should rename the article. This is not titled List of current paraphilias, which I would support to show that the "scientific" definitions shift with social custom. According to people who think paraphilia is a legitimate concept, attraction to breasts is , a type of partialism. See The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology etc. Jokestress (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

See my comment below about partialism. 109.123.87.153 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes; unfortunately, I am being WP:HOUNDed by user:Jokestress. Because I am openly gay, she re-adds homosexuality (and related terms) to this page when she dislikes something I write somewhere else. I recently created Erotic target location error, which Jokestress thinks is politically incorrect, so she promptly re-added homosexuality to this page as her “See? Now, how do you like being called paraphilic???”.

Jokestress’ dismissal of other editors’ input about this, both here and at Paraphilia:

Her repeated prior attempts to evade the consensus:

— James Cantor (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. We list celestial objects formerly classified as planets at List of planets. We can list sexual interests formerly classified as paraphilias here. The only people who seem to gave an issue with it seem to have a personal stake in the matter, e.g., an activist minority in the mental health field. Jokestress (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be there, but listed as no longer considered a paraphilia. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

109 is right. Things that are no longer classified as paraphilias may not appear in the main list. If the consensus is to list things that were formerly classified as paraphilias, let us create a section of the article - rather than including non-paraphilias in the main list, however many additional notes they have. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It would be much clearer not to include things that are not paraphilias in the main list. If historical artifacts are included in the article, they should be kept separate, following the precedent of List of planets. One might view this as evidence that the definitions are non-scientific and shift based on social custom, or one might view it as evidence that the genuine scientific understanding of the area has been legitimately refined, but either way, it is clearer to have them separated.

Incidentally, the first reference supporting the homophilia entry (currently 34), the 1974 APA position statement, doesn't link to a 1974 APA position statement. Nor does either the link target nor the actual 1973 position APA position statement, as far as I can tell, describe homosexuality as a paraphilia.--Trystan (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"List of paraphilias" does indeed make a specification of current status. The title says it all -- List of paraphilias. Homosexuality is no longer considered a paraphilia by most researchers. As for breasts, according to the DSM-IV-TR and as noted in the Partialism article, partialism is only categorized as a paraphilia "if it is not part of normative stimulation or causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life." I don't have much of a problem with breasts or any other normal attraction to a body part being listed as a paraphilia as long as it is made clear that the attraction(s) are now considered normal or are only considered abnormal under certain circumstances. As for Jokestress's motives for adding homosexuality, we should focus more on the content instead of the editor, but I also considered that she added homosexuality out of spite, meaning because of her conflict with Mr. James Cantor. In that first link displayed by Mr. Cantor above, Mr. Cantor also says that Paraphilia NOS are not paraphilias. Furthermore, if scientific definitions shift with social custom so much, most paraphilias that were considered paraphilias 20 years ago wouldn't still be considered paraphilias today; but that is beside the point. Jokestress says "The only people who seem to ave an issue with it seem to have a personal stake in the matter." That is not true in my case. And I don't mind homosexuality being mentioned in this article, but it should be listed like it was before it was removed months ago or something similar to that. The links that Mr. Cantor displayed above show that WP:Consensus is against homosexuality being on the main list. 109.123.87.153 (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If we're listing it as a paraphilia then under WP:WEIGHT it should be countered with the mainstream scientific view, saying it is not a paraphilia but was once considered to be one for political reasons. That or the article is renamed, or possibly split into past and present in a neutral manner. Thanks ツ Jenova20 08:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How many such entries are there? If it's just homosexuality, it might be worth including a section discussing, briefly, with a {{main}}, that homosexuality was a paraphilia. If there are several, it might be worth including a separate section with a table, with an added column specifying when it was "removed" as a paraphilia. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with a "scientific"-looking list of an unscientific subject is that lists make it difficult to explain the politics and criticisms of the list itself. "Pedohebephilia" should be discussed here, considered by Allen Frances to be "one of the most poorly written and unworkable of the suggested criteria sets." Élisabeth Roudinesco has identified the decision by psychiatrists, in demagogic fashion, to depathologize homosexuality and embrace "paraphilia" as the moment psychiatry attempted to turn subjective concepts into objective concepts, which she calls a "disaster" that abandoned the phenomenological roots of the discipline. A list like this is reification, and there are plenty of caveats regarding the very concept of paraphilia. I propose we organize this like the aforementioned List of planets, or maybe like List of astrological traditions, types, and systems. That list splits out current and former "sciences" with a good see also section, so the true believers might be exposed to the evidence that their "scientific" belief system is a fallacy. Jokestress (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Those would seem to be questions for the individual pages. If paraphilias are identified in the scientific and/or medical literature that would seem adequate to include them in this list. Homosexuality is the most visible former paraphilia (and is probably unique given its change in status along with that visibility), it should be mentioned on this page, but should only be in the list if accompanied by a prominent statement noting that it is no longer considered a paraphilia. And given the prominence and discussion required, it might be better to have a separate section. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 20:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese has made a good improvement on the page. Because I do think we should also include nonsense like pedohebephilia on this list, maybe the title of that section should be changed from "Non-paraphilic sexual interests formerly categorized as paraphilic" to "Disputed and deprecated paraphilias" or something to that effect. Comments welcome. Jokestress (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would want to make sure we did not conflate "disputed" things with things that have been officially removed. If things are "disputed" but still listed, we might put that in a separate section if the sourcing was good enough, but deprecated things should have their own section. This, however, is not my area of expertise. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The article body consists of only 3 sections. One of them is just on homophilia. If this was a bigger article, then that would be fine. However, it is better to put it back on the table but saying that it's formerly considered as such. Alternately just delete it altogether. I'm going with the first option. Acoma Magic (talk) 09:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that since it's not a paraphilia and the table is of paraphilias. Leave the section an appropriate size compared to the rest of the article without violating WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV. It's not a paraphilia so sticking it back in the table is problematic. Thanks ツ Jenova20 09:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the table should have information on former and current opinions on what counts as a paraphilia. A whole subsection on homophilia is undo weight on such a small article. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it. This article contains a simple list of current paraphilias. Homosexuality should not be singled out as a paraphilia that was declassified over 40 years ago (unless we include all other declassified paraphilias during the last century). It also violates WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV. Intrepid (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We should. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. When we expand the article to include a history of past paraphilias, it should be included. However, it should not be the only one listed in the article. Intrepid (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Current and former opinions on what counts as a paraphilia should be in the table or in a separate table

Title sums it up. If this page has become a graveyard, I'll do an RfC. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm voting for the same table, as opinion differs on what is a paraphilia. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter of opinion. The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association do not classify it a paraphilia. This article defines it as "...a form of 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."

As I've commented above, when we expand the article to include a history of past paraphilias, it should be included. However, it should not be the only one listed in the article. Intrepid (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As I've said, that is problematic, as opinions differ on what to classify as a paraphilia. Therefore, current, former and divided opinions should be in the same table with a description of it. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. We can move this to List of current paraphilias to disinclude disputed and deprecated terms like homosexuality and pedohebephilia. I would support this move to show that the "scientific" definitions shift with social custom. But a list of paraphilias should include some explanation of former paraphilias the way we do with Pluto on List of planets. Jokestress (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that we can't separate them, as it is problematic regarding what to include in "List of current paraphilias". Acoma Magic (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jokestress. We also should use those listed by the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association. This is physiological classification, not a matter of public opinion. Any questionable ones can be put into a third section. Intrepid (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The concept of paraphilia is clearly a matter of public opinion and what constitutes "normative" in any given time and culture. If we move this to list of current paraphilias, I believe we should still handle deprecated and disputed paraphilias on the same page. They are all still iatrogenic artifacts, like hystero-epilepsy and what-not. Jokestress (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Some non-American and American organisations/studies/scientists/groups would be preferable. Also, limiting it to the opinion of just three organisations isn't possible. I don't think we can drum up enough paraphilias to make three sections that also won't look odd by having just a couple in them. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"...opinions differ on what to classify as a paraphilia. Therefore, current, former and divided opinions should be in the same table with a description of it." What reliable sources do we have stating that there is a significant difference of modern opinion as to whether homosexuality is a paraphilia? Based on the sources in the article, it is not one, and so shouldn't be included in the main list.--Trystan (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The case for and against was allegedly put forth in this recent article by James Cantor, the Misplaced Pages SPA who does most of the editing here: However, it's not a fair or accurate summary of the arguments about why homosexuality can be defined as a paraphilia. Frankly, a gay guy is probably not the the most objective POV "expert" to conclude that his sexuality is "euphilic" (good love) but someone who preferentially dates overweight people etc. is dysphilic (bad love). It's certainly still in debate whether homosexuality is a paraphilia. Hence the recent article, flaws and all. Jokestress (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories: