Talk:Erotophobia

Three Overall Meanings or Usages of the Term 'Erotophobia' Have been Clarified and Better Laid Out in the Article
I have rearranged the article to more clearly reflect the three distinct meanings of the term 'Erotphobia': 1) as a clinical disorder 2) as a descriptive term in psychological studies (related to ones degree, on a continuum) of overall aversion to sex and 3) as an intellectual term used for example by some feminists.

65.102.241.122 (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Need for Citations
As written, all points of the article are easily supported by citations and references but someone (who has the time) needs to kindly add them for each of the three areas of terminology (I am unfortunately too busy to do any more work on this).

65.102.241.122 (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Clinical Definition
This was not the clinical definition of Erotophobia, so I changed the whole thing, if you think you know of a vernacular definition that varies, please find a reliable source. and bring it up in discussion. Here is a reliable source that uses this term clinically: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12442560&dopt=Abstract

Also, please check my grammer. lol. Dkriegls 06:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing about erotophobia to limit it to 'heterosexual' romance. If anythinmg, it's more of a Christian problem than a heterosexual one, though non-NPOV to say so eh User:Wetman

I removed the thing about feminists' sons - the article says there are no studies, so this is basically unsubstantiated - can we get some concrete sources? Dysprosia 09:06, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Clarity question:

"Erotophobia is sometimes thought to be caused by strict standards for a marriage mate, overjudging of physical appearance..."

Overjudging of one's own physical appearance, or of other peoples? I'm not an expert on the subject, and logically it could go either way. Either people could be erotophobic because they judge themselves as more attractive than they really are, and no mate they consider a match would ever be attracted to them, OR, oppositely, they could be erotophobic because they judge others to be more attractive than they actually are, and therefore hesistant to approach these people they consider inapproachably attractive. These are very different situations, and it would be nice to know which is being referenced. Mike Church 17:00, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: overjudging of physical appearance: I vaguely remember, though I can't recall my source, that both of these cases are true. Erotophobia can be caused by an unrealistically high standard to self or others' appearance.

Incorrect definition
This article is incorrect, Erotophobia is the fear of sex, while Gamophobia is the fear of marriage and Philophobia the fear of falling in love. Please check -phobia and/or google it.

I agree. Greek words are precise and the Greek word for love making is Erotas. Therefore, Erotophobia is fear of lovemaking or sex. The Greek word for marriage is Gamos. Therefore Gamophobia is fear of marriage or tight relationships.

"Cultural implications" section, re refs, lack of
Well, the article has been tagged for refs for a year, so let's see where we are. Let's start with the first section "Cultural implications". The text of this is:
 * Erotophobia can be used to describe a particular individual's attitudes or beliefs about sex and related issues, but it is a cultural phenomenon as well. Many Western societies such as the United States have unconscious fears of sexuality that show up in laws, customs and behaviors. Examples include the outlawing of the sale of vibrators and masturbation devices in Texas and Alabama, arrests of breast-feeding women, severe restrictions on sex education, laws against homosexual behaviors, and many more. Such cultural attitudes serve to reinforce negative beliefs and attitudes of families and individuals toward sexuality.

The only ref for this is a video, here.

I don't know off the top of my head what the policy is on YouTube videos as refs. I've never used a video as a ref (as opposed to an external link) and I'd be pretty leery of including info that isn't also available in print form. I'd see some potential problems with this: for one thing, video makes a poor ref because not everyone can access video, video can't be printed or searched, and you can't easily reference parts of a video, as you can reference page numbers in a book or article (you can reference time stamps, but whether this is as good or good enough I don't know).

More importantly, anyone can post a video to YouTube. It's essentially a self-publishing site, I think, and we have no way of knowing if the people are even who they say they are let alone if their facts have been vetted. So I can't see very many situations where a YouTube video would be a valid ref.

As to the content, my machine doesn't have audio capabilities so I don't know what's being said, but judging by the visual its some kind of polemical slide show put together by a person calling themselves Dr. Roz Dischavio. I don't know who that is, but she has an Ed.D which, notwitstanding the "D", is equivalent to an M.A. in other fields; people with Ed.D's do not generally style themselves as "doctor" any more than people with honorary doctorates do. So that's not a good sign. She doesn't appear to be on the faculty of any college or university. She doesn't appear to have written any books (according to amazon.com) or scholarly papers (according to Google Scholar, if I'm using it right). So I'm not sure what to make of this. I'm not finding any markers that this is as good ref.

On top of that, some of the material seeks kind of sketchy to me, "Many.. societies... have unconscious fears of sexuality that show up in laws" is sort of... uh, I'm not sure if the person is using the concept of the unconscious correctly here, and anyway IIRC laws are generally presented and debated in legislatures, so I'm not sure where the unconscious fits into that.

So all in all, if editors would refrain from using "this cool video this dude posted on the YouTubes" as a reference in a major encyclopedia, this would, in my view, be a good thing, and not only that, think of all the time that would be saved! Mine in particular. Section removed, and we'll see about the rest of the article later. Herostratus (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

One-sided
From my perspective, this article seems to look at 'erotophobia', or 'having sex less' or 'avoiding sex', as an overall bad thing, and even goes so far as to compare it to being racist, sexist, or just all around discriminatory. I used to be an erotophobe (and according to this definition, still am), and much of the time, it's not because of discrimination against sex or those having sex, simply that the act of sexual intercourse wasn't (isn't) appealling. A person could also be afraid of sexuality because he/ she was raped or sexually abused at home, when young, or the like. Beside this, it's scientically proven that countries or cultures with more sexual education have less sex. For example, compared to Africa, those in America participate in sexual activity less; does this in turn make America automatically a erotophobic country and thus discriminatory? No! I propose that the portion that reads "has sex less" should also be adjusted a bit to read more along the lines of "unwilling to have sex" or "chooses not to have sex", not merely "less sex". I also think there should be at least a mentioning of why people are erotophobic, the PROS and cons of erotophobia, cases of intense erotophobia, and maybe general cures for erotophobia for those who find that themselves erotophobic and are lost as to how to overcome their fear (and a cure beyond merely having sex, as that benefits a erotophobe as much as surrounding someone alergic to cats with cats; believe me). -Nicole P.S. This is merely an opinion, and I don't actually have a source for where it was proven that those with sexual education have less sex, I have just heard it so many times when broaching the subject that I forgot exactly where it was from. 75.11.172.116 (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you point out more specific which parts you would like to rephrase?  Lova Falk     talk   08:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)