Bittergrey (talk | contribs) →Definition: -main def at paraphilia, summary here. |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
Thanks for reading, [[User:Tijfo098|Tijfo098]] ([[User talk:Tijfo098|talk]]) 08:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for reading, [[User:Tijfo098|Tijfo098]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Bittergrey|BitterGrey]] ([[User talk:Bittergrey|talk]]) 14:36, 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? [[User:Bittergrey|BitterGrey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 21:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:24, 12 October 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Erythrotrichophilia
Does this one exist? I've seen it here[1] (Ainslie McIntyre's comment, September 15, 2009, 16:26:40).--Follgramm3006 (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Could an "erythrotrichophilist" be "Somebody who sexually desires policewomen"?--Follgramm3006 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose there could also be "Ebonotrichophilist" or "Negritrichophilist" ad nauseam... and you have to remove the pipe at the end of that link to show your viewers the picture of the red-haired policewoman... right now, it's busted. Seduisant (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good question. What's the name for the "sexual desire for policewomen"?--80.58.205.56 (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
fartophilia
suggest merging Flatulophilia here --Arkelweis (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- I instead suggest Flatulophilia for an AfD.— James Cantor (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- One or the other, there are no sources on which to base an actual article, the article seems mainly intended to add links. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Is infantophilia a neologism and/or misnomer?
"Infantophilia" conjures up images of the sexual molestation of newborns. While I would imagine radio shock jocks and reactionary bloggers embracing this term quickly, Google scholar lists only 27 uses, contrasted with pedophilia's 17,000. Based on this, it clearly is a neologism. This suggests that it should be left off the list, much like nepiophilia( 6). Perhaps the lack of adoption is due to its lack of clarity. Infant "is typically applied to children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months." The term in question here was intended to refer to preschoolers as well, over one-third of the age range covered by the term pedophilia, not just to infants.
Input would be appreciated from editors who are not associated with those who coined this term. BitterGrey (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe whoever put it in meant infantilism, which is quite different. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- The source indicates it is a newly proposed term. For now, I added a note that it's not in general use. I would concur with removing it from the list unless more sources are found. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, seems like a fairly helpful distinction to me but I can see your point on not being widely used. But I am definitely not an expert on this. On a unrelated note I've deleted Voyeurism as it was the same as Scoptophilia Mhairiiscool (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- The term voyeurism is overwhelmingly more common across the RS's than is the term scoptophilia.— James Cantor (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, Voyeurism is the better term for the list - it's also the name of the relevant Wikipedia article. When I checked, both terms were listed, so I removed the Scoptophilia and moved the second reference to Voyeurism. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
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. [2] 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 [3] 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 [pre]copulatory behavior. On Wikipedia 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 [pre]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.
- Now, Cantor's definition tries to achieve a few practical objectives:
- The assumption that copulation, rather that [mutual] 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 [pre]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)