Talk:List of paraphilias/Archive 1

Collapsing paraphilias and fetishes

 * No Merge. Paraphilia may be innate. Fetishes may be situational. forestPIG 14:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you back that up? According to the DSM, fetishes are paraphilias.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There may be some common ground, but my own idea is that the use of a different term somewhat fulfils my argument. A DSM defined paraphilia could be noted as such - even in the context of it generally being seen as a fetish, but should be kept apart from attraction to stuffed toys et cetera. Probable or demonstrable nature or nurture categories are probably better than medical classifications, at least for an encyclopedia. forestPIG 17:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo Paraphilias
This list should be broken up into established (medical or wide usage) and neo/pseudo paraphilias. forestPIG 14:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dadophilia? Vladanophilia?

 * Dadophilia (vladanophilia): sexual attraction to only a single person, named after a boy from Serbia (similar to stalking).

I like to think I'm pretty well read on this topic, and I've never seen those words before. Nor does anything come up in a google search or my medical dictionary. Do you have a reference for it? —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the IP's edit record (e.g. I think it's safe to assume the edit is vandalism.Sjö (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite possible. I just thought it would be appropriate to assume good faith and to invite the editor to justify the edit rather than merely to delete it without comment. While I have your attention, is there a vehicle for inviting folks to start inserting good sources for these terms? I've added ones I have easy access to, but many are rather obscure. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a number of template messages that you can add to the article. Doing that puts a link to the article on a category page like this one: Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates where it can be esily found.Sjö (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Include pedohebephilia and gynandromorphophilia?
Mukadderat and I are debating whether to include the terms pedohebephilia and gynandromorphophilia. Both appear in peer-reviewed journals, as noted below. I feel they should be included, as they meet WP criteria for mention (WP:V to an RS). Mukadderat feels that they are neologisms that do not merit mention. Anyone else have any input to provide?

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pedohebephilia: sexual attaction to children, both pubescent and prepubescent. From Freund, K., Seeley, H. R., Marshall, W. E., & Glinfort, E. K. (1972). Sexual offenders needing special assessment and/or therapy. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, 14, 3–23.
 * Gynandromorphophilia: sexual attraction to women with penises, men cross-dressed as women, or male-to-female transsexuals. From Blanchard, R., & Collins, P. I. (1993). Men with sexual interest in transvestites, transsexuals, and she males. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 181, 570–575.


 * I don't have any input on the specific terms, but only a general observation. It's easy to create new words in English; words that are "real" in that the meaning can be easily understood even though they are neologisms. It's especially true for the endings -philia and -phobia where you can create new "tags" for a concept just by combining words. Some of these new words will be used in one paper and then never again, some will be reused an eventually find their way into common usage. So, in my opinion, it isn't enough that a term is mentioned in one paper. It should, still in my opinion, be used in several places, and if you can find a term in a university-level textbook it's almost certainly relevant. Sjö (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your point, but I think the cat has already escaped that bag. A large proportion of items on most lists of paraphilias were coined by John Money and never used again. If we apply your standard (which is a reasonable one, even if it's not the WP standard), then we should be deleting most of this list. (And I note that most of the list is entirely unsourced.) If we use the WP standard (i.e., appears in an peer-reviewed journal), then Money's list stays and pedohebephilia and gynandromorphophilia should stay. Am I misinterpreting you? —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am afraid it must work in exactly the opposite way: if you see in this list just as nonotable paraphilias as the discussed ones, then they must be deleted too, rather than more garbage added. Laudak (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you confirm for me that I am reading you correctly? I have no horse in the race about whether to include more or to include fewer (although I think including more might be an interesting project for someone who enjoys old-fashioned library research), but I am hesitant to change the WP general policy on the issue. The WP rule (as I understand it...I'm still on the newbie side) is that if it appears in an RS (decent journal, university text, etc.), then it's in. Are you saying that we should change that rule for this article; that is, to raise the bar? If so, raise it to what objective standard (appreciating that any bar will be contested by someone somewhere)? And how would other editors know that this page has a higher standard for inclusion? —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Verifiability is a necessary condition for anything to be included, but it's not a sufficient condition. Not everything that was ever published is fit to be included in an article. I'd like to point you to WP:UNDUE which I think is relevant here. If almost noone uses a term, then it can be considered "fringe" and should not be included. Sjö (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am having trouble seeing your logic: No one has contested that there exists a paraphilia wherein individuals are sexually attracted to persons who have mixed male and female anatomy (usually, a female body with a penis). There exist a great many porn sites catering to this sexual interest, and people who actually have that mix of anatomy (usually biological males who have partially undergone transition to female) report no shortage of finding individuals sexually interested in them. Two of the best known sexology researchers in the world (John Money and Ray Blanchard) have proposed names for the phenomenon, and both of the terms have appeared in peer-reviewed journals, thus meeting the WP threshold for inclusion. However, you are advocating that the WP list of paraphilias not include any entry at all for this paraphilia? (!) There is no basis for saying that including the terms gives undue weight (undue weight relative to what alternative what should receive greater weight?) Except for slang, no other name for this paraphilia has been proposed, and there is no medical term in greater usage than these two terms. I believe you are mistaking 'no one using the term' for there being 'no professionals doing research on this topic', thereby minimizing their appearance in the scientific literature and the ease with which the terms can be found by web-searches. I have no problem raising the bar for the terms included on this page...specifically raising it to be consistent with WP policy. To remove these properly-sourced terms, but to leave on the page entirely unsourced terms appears to me rather bizarre. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * James asked for my opinion. There is, in fact, something necessary besides sourced  existence of the term, there is usage. We do not generally include nonce words, words proposed by an academic or used by a writer or blogger, until there is some evidence that other people use them. Writers, academic or otherwise, say & publish a lot of things that are never heard of subsequently.  If there's any evidence other people use the terms, then they should certainly be added. The fact that there is no other recognized name, though, might well be a partial exception--if the concept is in fact truly of at last some significance, and the word is the only one in use, then it is helpful to have it. I understand James to be saying that there concept is seen in multiple online sources--so what do these porn sites use when they refer to them? DGG (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I have no input on the specific terms James asked about. I only made the general observation that verifiability isn't enough.Sjö (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dshsfca (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC) I have little regard for the psychologicalBold text professions and even less regard for DSM-IV and its vile antecedents, since neither are based on the scientific model or on evidence-based empirical criteria. (Documented hereafter.) Moreover, not a single testable hypothesisBold text has been advanced and validated since professional psychology separated from its parent philosophy in the 1890s.

That said, anyone with commonsense -- not a Wiki feature -- knows the linguistic, epistemic, and ontological difference Bold textbetween a human as an object of sexual desire and an non-human-object as an object of desire. That demarcation is definitive diagnostically, even if poorly concealed by the DSM-IV's multiple metaphysical possible features (e.g., five out of eight). Because homophilia, both gynophilia and androphilia, like heterophilia, are human objects of sexual desire, the APAs yielded to biological and philosophical demands in the early 1970s requiring proof of "disorder" or be exposed on a grand scale for their reparative therapies and cures of a standard variant of the human sexual condition (and 1450 other species, to date). No other species, save humans, and only those human in certain circumscribed populations, engage in paraphilias.

Thus, the psychiatrists, because they have a basic science medical education (which psychologists do not), conceded its absurdity in 1973, with the psychologists balking, hemming-and-hawing, and still indeterminate by allowing nefarious practices under its "scope of practice," such as C.I.A. torture tolerance endurance until 9/08.

As for my documentation:

Karl Popper and others have insisted that none of the “psyche” claims have an empirical basis, save the empiricism of B. F. Skinner’s behaviorism, and his legatees as “cognitive behaviorists.” But even empirical behaviorism, disclosed Popper, had exceedingly immense variable conditions to make any objective conjecture, refutation, evaluation impossible (see also "Excluded Middle"). Social constructionism would validate the problem from linguistic, cultural, sociological, ontological, epistemic, and causal variables so immense that no “observer” nor “observed” could infer any consistent, coherent, or predictively valid conclusion from any of dubious premises, which premises the Cult would include or exclude in the inferential process (e.g., metaphysical multiple-choice descriptive metaphysics scheme, known as the Diagnostics Standards Manual (DSM - I-IV) with entirely subjective “global assessments” by individuals already immersed in a “conceptual pluralism” of “models” that beg belief and stretch credulity.

McGuire and Troisi, M.D. American and Italian psychiatric researchers, indict their colleagues on a number of these various fronts in their seminal repudiation of the Cult in 1998. When the psyche-industry separated from its parent of philosophy at the end of the 19th century, skeptics of the new endeavor split into (i) metaphysicians and (ii) empiricists. From the Freudian-James Divide, any number of gurus posited any number of theories, such that

“the present century [20th] has witnessed the rise and fall of the psychoanalytic, sociocultural, and behavioral models of disorders; the rise of the biomedical models; and more recently, the rise and question relevance of general systems theory, and chaos theory. . . . Viewed dispassionately, each of psychiatry’s four prevailing models has fallen short of explaining critical details of disordered behavior. . . . It’s unlikely that everyone can be right. More important, today’s psychiatry is not in a position to decide.” These researchers continue,

“conceptual pluralism is plagued by yet other problems. Two of the most important are the accumulation of low-utility data and the absence of agreed-upon methods for testing hypothesis. . . Escaping from conceptual pluralism requires at least two conditions: the presence of a theory from which hypotheses can be deduced, and agreed-upon methods for hypothesis disconfirmation (Popper 1969). Put another way, without a theory with deductive and testable properties as well as the use of methodologies that facilitate the testing and rejection of hypotheses, more data will be collected, more causal explanations generated, more methodological debates will occur, and a resolution to psychiatry’s conceptual confusion will remain a distant goal.”

These researchers continue,

“For example, psychiatry’s explanatory models are cast within different metaphysical systems, each of which is built on mechanistic assumptions and applies mechanistic logic. The biomedical model is built on the mechanistic assumptions and applies mechanistic [cf., Boolean mathematical] logic. Psychoananlytic models are built on formistic, mechanistic, and organismic assumptions and apply their respective logics. Depending on which system of assumptions and logic one selects, the same datum can be explained differently. Further, different theories of truth are associated with each metaphysical system. This means that there are different rules for deciding if an explanation is valid. When they are applied to prevailing models, it is not difficult to predict the consequence of the preceding points: models will remain separate; causal events may be obscured; and efforts to refute or integrate models will get bogged down in the rhetoric of professional politics, funding opportunities, and the philosophical debates.”

For example, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association meeting in Hawaii was confronted by demands from biologists, philosophers, and gays and lesbians for proof that “homosexuality was a pathology and curable” could produce neither. Pressed against the wall, by popular vote of the convocation, the gurus determined a different finding, that homosexuality was a standard variant of human sexuality, even though less than a decade earlier, numerous psychologists, including Albert Ellis, Ph.D., had insisted quite the contrary. And Ellis had the audacity to question Objectivism as a “religion?” Doubt the existence of "self-esteem?"

Ironically, Ellis and his Cult of Peer-Review would subsequently write an indictment of itself: Overcoming Destructive Beliefs, Feelings, and Behaviors: New Directions for Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy. Hold up a mirror, Dr. Ellis! The mere fact that the Hawaii convocation determined a change in “pathologies” and “cures” by popular vote of its peers only reinforced the excessive metaphysical assumptions that had been used by the profession to “treat” homosexual males with Pavlovian aversive operant conditioning (i.e., "reparative therapy"), in which practitioners attached electrodes to gay men’s penises and nipples, even inserting electrical currents into their rectums, and then upon showing pictures of beautiful naked males to their “homosexual clients” zapped them with painful electrical currents to their highly-sensitive erogenous zones, a practice so barbaric that it is barred under the Geneva Conventions, but continues to be practiced even today under the “color” of the free-exercise of religion, behavioral “science,” and reparative therapy.

While sociologist Philip Reiff would herald the “Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith after Freud,” others were far less sanguine (the title is tongue-in-cheek disgust with psychoanalysis, which his former wife Susan Sontag demonstrated a failure). Ken Kesey’s employment at Menlo Park, California’s Veterans Hospital led to his 1962 novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, which was released as a film in 1975, winning all top five Academy Awards. (Based on the play that ran for nearly a decade at the Little Fox theater on Pacific and Montgomery Streets, San Francisco, starring Johnny Wisemiller's son.)

The draconian lobotomies, electroshock treatment, and reparative therapies for homosexuality led to calls for decertification of the Cult of Therapeutic. Eminent Harvard Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson in his 1978 Pulitzer Prize On Human Nature was incensed. He writes, “nowhere has the sanctification of premature hypothesis inflicted more pain than in the treatment of homosexuals.” Dr. Wilson likens psychiatrists to the Nazi death camps at Sachsenhausen and Buchenwald, protesting, “in parts of the United States haemophilus are still denied some of their civil liberties, while a majority of psychiatrists continue to treat homosexuality as a form of illness and express professional discouragement over its intractability.” Dr. Wilson continues, “there is, I wish to suggest, a strong possibility that homosexuality is normal in a biological sense, that it is a distinctive beneficent behavior that evolved as an important element of early human social organization.” The Cult of Therapeutic withdrew, for the most part under the light of stigma, but numerous members continue to operate reparative clinics, such as the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals in Encino, California.

II

Philosophers of Mind have repeatedly assailed the psyche-industries’ assumptions, methods, and theories. Perhaps none has been more vociferously than University of California at Berkeley’s John Searle, whose 1992 Rediscovery of the Mind indicts every current conception of the psyche-industry’s theories and methodologies for what may broadly be described the “excluded middle.” The double entendre is based on Aristotle’s Categorical Syllogism in which the “middle term” evaporates in the inference (e.g, If A then B. If B then C. If A then C, wherein “B” becomes the “excluded middle.) Searle’s indictments repeatedly cite the “excluded middle” of consciousness itself as a value or interest by behaviorist, psychoanalyst, biomedical, and sociocultural, and operant conditioning torture technicians. Since Aristotle’s days, the “given” is that the mind – by our own minds as a reference – functions on at least five levels: thought, perception, will, imagination, and emotion. The “last” philosopher/psychologist to cite all five functions was Harvard professor William James in his Principles of Psychology. Instead, Freudian, Jungian, Adlerian, et Alia metaphysics have reigned supreme, with Pavlovian operant conditioning, and periodic behaviorist techniques of dubious/questionable ethics/merit, such as B. F. Skinner’s and J. B. Watson's program of the 1940s and 1950s of “stimulus-response,” “inputs-outputs” with the “middle excluded:” thought, perception, will, imagination, and emotion, namely, the “mind” eliminated.

After all, psyche in Greek means soul, not mind. Despite the notion of soul being a Greek, derivatively Judeo-Christian-Islamic metaphysical concept abandoned by modern science since English scientist Robert Boyle’s A Free Inquiry into the Vulgar Received Notion of Nation, 1686, and reiterated in David Hume’s Treatise on Human Nature in 1740, the diviners of soul perpetuate their myths as "doctors of the soul:" Psychologists and Psychiatrists.

III

While Marx considered religion the “opiate of the masses” and Freud wrote of the Future of an Illusion, in which his psychoanalysts would replace rabbis, priests, and ministers, we learn that the Triumph of the Therapeutic is costing lives, fragmenting psyches, and profiting pharmaceutical companies in massive doses (psychotropics are second to none in medical prescriptions), but nothing like the psychiatrists whose “consultation” for the pharmaceutical companies take top honors. We learn from the 27 Jun 07 New York Times,

"psychiatrists earn more money from drug makers than doctors in any other specialty. The more psychiatrists have earned from drug makers, the more they have prescribed a new class of powerful medicines known as atypical anti-psychotics to children, for whom the drugs are especially risky and mostly unapproved. Vermont officials disclosed Tuesday that drug company payments to psychiatrists in the state more than doubled last year, to an average of $45,692 each from $20,835 in 2005. Antipsychotic medicines are among the largest expenses for the state’s Medicaid program.”

Given that no theory “holds” for the use of psychotropics -- much less the benefits of psychoanalysis, the psychoaffective agents' effectiveness never exceeds 65% at best (15% better than coin toss). As the Times' report [supra.] demonstrates, the ethical conflict-of-interest for self-interest profits, compounded by the unsavory fact that governments foot much of psychoactive pills' bill, many individual have come to the conclusion that the use of the Metaphysicians of Mind could be hazardous to your mind and impoverish your pocketbook, all to numb and dumb the masses by the therapeutic process.

Even now, the Cult permits the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH), Focus on the Family, American Family Council, Exodus International, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), a Jewish organization that focuses on “prevention, intervention, and healing of the underlying issues causing same-sex attractions,” to continue their occult.practices as licitly discouraged, but approved. As Drs. McGuire and Troisi remind: “efforts to refute or integrate models will get bogged down in the rhetoric of professional politics, funding opportunities, and the philosophical debates” and citing, “academic disciplines have their own territorial imperatives” for self-interest and self-perpetuation of special-interests. Is it any consolation that the Cult of the Therapeutic changes its faith to reappear as agents to survey C.I.A. torture in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, as in Nazi death camps, Stalin's gulags, and apartheids fare and wide?

Those costs -- not merely financial, but morally, ethically, and character, may be too great for any enlightened society to bear, and since the Psyche Industry's own peer-review determines its own metaphysical schemes, therapeutic devices, and psychotropics, it is past time to “yank their chain.” We join the one sage’s observation: "At least astrologers can point to the stars and astronomy to explain their predictions; what does the psyche-industry point to?" Ego-Id-Superego? Or the discontents of civilization it itself has bred?

© 1998 (revised & updated 2007). All rights reserved. D. Stephen Heersink San Francisco, California

References & Acknowledgments

Continued gratitude to U.C. Berkeley’s John Searle, Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson, British philosophers Peter Geach and his wife Elizabeth Anscombe, our esteemed memory of Sir Karl Popper and his renegade protege Paul Feyerabend, whose “against method” have banded together to fight the Cult of Therapeutic against gays and lesbians, and all the “sick” and “tortured” involuntarily indentured in the “hallowed torture chambers” of Psyche Wards in their Council of Peer-Review.

Primary References:

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species & Descent of Man. 1859. Charles Darwin, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.1889. Charles Darwin, Metaphysics, Materialism, & the Evolution of Mind: Early Writings of Charles Darwin. Tr. Paul Barrett. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974. Gardiner Harris, “Psychiatrists Top List in Drug Maker Gifts,” New York Times, 27 June 2007 David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature. Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978 (1740). Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Routledge, 1963. John Searle, The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992. E. O. Wilson, On Human Nature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Secondary References:

Elizabeth Anscombe, The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe. Volume II: Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1981. Aristotle. Complete Works. Two Volumes. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. J. L. Austin, Philosophical Papers. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962. Alfred Jules Ayer, Language, Truth, & Logic. New York: Dover Books, 1952. Kent Bach. Thought and Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby (eds). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Roy F. Baumeister, Meanings of Life. New York: The Guilford Press, 1991. Peter L. Bernstein, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996. Simon Blackburn, Truth: A Guide. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. George Boole, An Investigation of the Laws of Thought of which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities. New York: Dover, 1958 (1859). L. Jonathan Cohen, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Induction and Probability. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. L. Jonathan Cohen, An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. William Child, Causality, Interpretation, and the Mind. New York: Clarendon Press, 1994 Roger Crisp (ed.), ''How Should One Live? Essays on the Virtues.'' New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Donald Davidson, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. Donald Davidson, Essays on Actions & Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980 Donald Davidson, Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. Albert Ellis, Homosexuality: Its causes and Cures. NY: Lyle Stuart, 1965. Gareth Evans, The Varieties of Reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Paul Feyerabend, Against Method. Revised Edition. New York: Verso, 1988 (1975). Michel Foucault, Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. New York: The New Press, 1984. Michel Foucault, The Archeology of Knowledge & the Discourse of Language. New York: Pantheon Press, 1972. Sigmund Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle. c. 1927 Sigmund Freud. Future of an Illusion. c. 1927. Peter Geach, Mental Acts. London: Routledge, 1958. Thomas Gilovich, How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991. Gerd Gigerenzer, Adaptive Thinking: Rationality in the Real World. In Evolution and Cognition, Stephen Stich (ed.) New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. William James, Principles of Psychology. 2 Vols. 1918.   Anthony Kenny, The Metaphysics of Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989 Saul A. Kripke, Naming and Necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second Edition. [Foundations of the Unity of Science, 1962]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Michael Lynch. True to Life: Why Truth Matters. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004. William Lyons (ed), Modern Philosophy of Mind. London: Everyman, 1995. Jacques Maritain, The Degrees of Knowledge. Gerald Phelan (tr.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books, 2001. 'Michael McGuire & Alfonso Troisi, Darwinian Psychiatry''. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Esp. Chap. 1-4.'''   Alfred R. Mele, Springs of Action: Understanding Intentional Behavior. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. J. S. Mill, A System of Logic, New York: Modern Library, 1961. Gregory Murphy, The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002. Robert Nozick, The Nature of Rationality. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Martha Nussbaum, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. Martha Nussbaum, Upheavals of Though: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 2001. Henri Poincare, The Value of Science. New York Random House, 2001. Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York: Routledge, 1959. Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Routledge, 1963. Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972. Karl Popper, “The Problem of Induction,” in David Miller (ed), Popper Selections. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. Karl Popper, “The Empirical Basis” in David Miller (ed), Popper Selections. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. Karl Popper, “Propensities, Probabilities, and Quantum Theory” in David Miller (ed), Popper Selections. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. Karl Popper, “The Self” in David Miller (ed), Popper Selections. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. Karl Popper, “The Mind-Body Problem.”in David Miller (ed), Popper Selections. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. Karl Popper, “The Rationality Principle.” in David Miller (ed), Popper Selections. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. W. V. Quine, Methods of Logic. Fourth Edition.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950. Philip Reiff, Triumph of the Therapeutic: Uses of Faith after Freud. 1966. Gilbert Ryle, Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949. John Searle, Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press,1983. John Searle, Rationality in Action. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001. John Searle, Mind, Language, and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. New York: Basic Books, 1998. John Searle, Rediscovery of the Mind, New York: Free Press, 1992. John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995. Peter Simons, Parts: A Study in Ontology, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. Robert C. Solomon. The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life. Garden City: Hackett, 1993 (1976), Robert C. Solomon, Love: Emotion, Myth, & Metaphor. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1990. Robert C. Solomon, Not Passion’s Slave: Emotions and Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Thomas Szasz, The Myth of Mental Illness. New York: Harper, 1984. Douglas N. Walton, Informal Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. E. O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vantage, 1998. Timothy Wilson, Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 2004. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Remarks on Philosophical Psychology. Two Volumes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations. Third Edition. G. E. M. Anscombe (tr.) London: Macmillan, 1958. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value. Peter Winch (tr.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Gay-Specific Authors

Bruce Bawer (ed.), Beyond Queer: Challenging Gay Left Orthodoxy. New York: Free Press, 1996. Louis Crompton, Homosexuality & Civilization. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978. Charles Kaiser, The Gay Metropolis: The Landmark History of Gay Life in America Since World War II. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1997. Edward Stein, The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Gregory Woods, A History of Gay Literature: The Male Tradition. Princeton: University of Princeton Press, 1998.

Homophobic Authors

Clifford Allen, Homosexuality: Its Nature, Causation and Treatment. London: Staples Press, 1958. Bieber, Dain, Dince, Drellich, Grad, Gundlach, et al. Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study. New York: Basic Books, 1962. Gunter Dorner, "Hormone Dependent Brain Development and Neuroendocrine Prophylaxis." In Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology, 1989. Dorner, Stahl, Halle, "A Neuroendocrine Predisposition for Homosexuality in Men," In Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1975. Albert Ellis, Homosexuality: Its causes and Cures. NY: Lyle Stuart, 1965. Michael Ruse, ''Homosexuality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,'' 1988.

Overlap?
From what I understand a fetish is a paraphilia to an inanimate object, while a paraphilia is more or less sexual arousal from a situation. But i've noticed a lot of overlaps in the use of the terms. Take tickling fetishism, which I would have thought would be a paraphilia, as being tickled isn't an object. And it's not just this article either but within all of wikipedia. --Philip Laurence (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In professional sexology, the fetishes are a subset of the paraphilias; that is, the paraphilias include all the atypical sexual interests, whereas that fetishes are those paraphilias that pertain to inanimate objects. Some non-professionals use the word "fetish" to refer to any rarified sexual taste, but that is technically incorrect. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 18:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So, tickling fetishism isn't a fetish, but a paraphilia as i've pointed out? We should correct this as the paraphilia/fetish interchangeably can, and is, confusing to those unfamiliar. --Philip Laurence (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 18:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I will start editing any "inaccuracies" I come across, and see if WikiProject Sexology and sexuality can help "standardize" the articles. --Philip Laurence (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Pup-play
It's description calls it a sub-fetish of human animal roleplay and seems as though it was added by a fan of that specific type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.192.204 (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of article
The recent edits expanding the commentary on this page was very reasonable in its content, but (I think) misplaced on this page. This particular page is meant to be a list only, not coverage of the actual topic. I believe that such information should be placed instead on the paraphilia and related pages directly. Thoughts from others? — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 21:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

71.202.65.243 has added several paragraphs of text to this page, which is actually a list. The information has also been added to the paraphilias page, which it would be more appropriate (in my opinion). I have added a wikilink to that effect, so that anyone reading this page has easiest access to that one. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 14:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I support your edits, and I agree this article is best kept a list. DGG (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Paraphilias needing sources
I have removed from the list entries for which I have not been able to locate an RS. Rather than entirely deleting the still-unsourced entries, I thought it appropriate to move them here so that anyone interested could still try to locate sources and reinstate them on the page.

— James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 11:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Aretifism: sexual attraction to people who are without footwear, in contrast to retifism
 * Aquaphilia: arousal from water and/or in watery environments, including bathtubs and swimming pools
 * Claustrophilia: sexual arousal from being confined in a small space
 * Dacryphilia: sexual pleasure in eliciting tears from others or oneself
 * Emetophilia: sexual attraction to vomiting
 * Erotic lactation: (also galactophilia): sexual attraction to human milk or lactating women
 * Food play: sexual arousal from food, also termed sitophilia
 * Forniphilia: sexual objectification in which a person's body is incorporated into a piece of furniture
 * Human animal roleplay: sexual arousal by having oneself or a partner taking on the role of real or imaginary animal
 * Jock sniffing:
 * Katoptronophilia: sexual arousal from having sex in front of mirrors
 * Knismolagnia: sexual arousal from being tickled
 * Macrophilia: sexual attraction to giants, giantessess or giant body parts (such as breasts and genitalia)—the opposite of microphilia
 * Microphilia: sexual attraction to miniature people or miniature body parts—the opposite of macrophilia
 * Neophilia: sexual arousal from what is new
 * Nyctophilia: sexual arousal from darkness or night
 * Odaxelagnia: sexual arousal associated with biting or being bitten
 * Parthenophilia: sexual attraction to virgins
 * Plushophilia: sexual attraction to stuffed animals and/or people dressed in animal costumes
 * Pyrophilia: sexual arousal through watching, setting, hearing, talking or fantasizing about fire
 * Sitophilia: sexual arousal by involving food in sex, also termed food play
 * Teratophilia: sexual attraction to deformed or monstrous people
 * Xenophily: sexual attraction to foreigners (in science fiction, it can also mean sexual attraction to aliens)
 * Vincilagnia: sexual arousal from being tied up

Although it is generally inappropriate for editors to change the talk page comments of other editors, I would have no objection to anyone removing or striking through items in my above list if/when a source for the entry is found and the entry is moved back to the main page. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 12:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis on DSM codes and history
User:Jokestress has added to the page entries for homosexuality (noting that it's classification as a paraphilia is obsolete) and paraphilia NOS (the DSM name used for paraphilias that do not have their own codes in that manual). It is my opinion that neither belong on the page. This page is a list of paraphilias, and neither homosexuality nor "paraphilia NOS" are paraphilias. I can certainly appreciate the general relevance of historical information (for homosexuality) or DSM contents (for NOS), but I am of the opinion that such information belongs on a regular WP page rather than the list of actual paraphilias.

Because she and I disagree on this, input from others to form a concensus would be appreciated. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 17:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If the current consensus is that homosexuality isn't a paraphilia, then I agree that it should not be listed. I also agree regarding NOS. Skoojal (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The current consensus is that "homosexuality" is not a mental disorder (at least in the DSM). I don't think being gay is a "paraphilia," either (the whole concept is pseudoscience), but if we are going to list DSM category 302, which is their arbitrary list of "sexual deviance" and disorders, we should include all the diagnoses that have appeared in the DSM under their nosology, including "homosexuality." After all, it was top of the list of diseases in the category: 302.0, right before fetishism (302.1) pedophilia (302.2) and what-not. They have removed other categories as well, such as zoophilia. It's pretty clear that they did not distinguish homosexuality from other "paraphilias" or psychosexual disorders in the early editions. What's cute is the gay people who use the DSM to pathologize and oppress other people now that they have their "disorder" removed.
 * Separately, 302.9 (Paraphilia not otherwise specified) remains on the books and should be included. Jokestress (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with James Cantor that this isn't an article about the history of how paraphilias, or conditions deemed to be such, have been classified. Skoojal (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The assertion that homosexuality is not a paraphilia is a modern one. The article is a list of paraphilias, so we should include all of them.
 * "The two most important forms of paraphilia are homosexuality and fetishism."
 * "The reasoning behind the inclusion or exclusion of homosexuality applies just as well or as poorly to the paraphilias."
 * "Sexual disorders once considered paraphilias (e.g., homosexuality) are now regarded as variants of normal sexuality."
 * The DSM used to consider "deviant sexuality" and specified "the type of the pathological behavior, such as homosexuality, transvestism, pedophilia, fetishism, and sexual sadism, including rape, sexual assault, mutiliation)." (DSM-I) Some editors may want to rewrite history to normalize their brand of sexuality, but Wikipedia should reflect verifiable, historically accurate data about what has been listed as a paraphilia in the DSM if we are to have that heading. Jokestress (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jokestress, you wrote "Some editors may want to rewrite history to normalize their brand of sexuality." What am I to say to this? I can't speak for James Cantor, but I really don't care whether my sexuality is normal or not. I'm totally indifferent to such questions. I'm objecting to including homosexuality here because this is a list of paraphilias based on modern understanding of what paraphilias are. Your position would only make sense if you think that homosexuality really is a paraphilia. Is that what you think? Skoojal (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jokestress said that homosexuality being not a paraphilia is a modern idea. Jokestress failed to point out that the idea that homosexuality is a paraphilia is also a modern idea.  (Whether she omitted that information willfully or out of ignorance there is no way to know.)  Jokestress also referred to "what has been listed as a paraphilia in the DSM if we are to have that heading."  Personally, I think that we should not have that heading and that the entries under it should be re-integrated into the main list.  (Incidentally, it was Jokestress who created the heading.)
 * For the record, I am indeed indifferent to whether being gay is officially normal. At least, I hold accuracy as more important than my personal feelings.
 * — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as accuracy, an IP editor added the APA/DSM category. You didn't object to the heading and made many revisions to it until your "disorder" was accurately listed here as one of the psychology/psychiatry industry's official diseases on their official list. I believe it's important to have homosexuality listed to show how arbitrary and subjective and inaccurate this concept of "paraphilia" is. It's clear from the reliable sources provided that homosexuality was (and sometimes still is) considered a paraphilia and that the recent politically-motivated distinction raises important questions about what is a paraphilia. Whitewashing historical facts does nobody any favors. I propose listing (whether there's a subhead or not):
 * Homosexuality: attraction to people of the same sex (listed as a paraphilia until 1973)
 * We can link to the Paraphilia section on classificational issues and quote from the DSM, which notes that homosexuality and other sexual deviations like mild voyeurism were determined (over the objection of many clinicians) not to meet the criteria of subjective distress or impairment. Jokestress (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Jokestress is correct regarding the creation of the DSM section. I apologize.
 * Nonetheless, there does not appear to be a consensus regarding the inclusion of homosexuality (nor NOS) as paraphilias. Perhaps the WP sexuality project might be asked for input.
 * — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 22:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tongue sticking as a paraphilia
What category would sexual arousal from someone sticking there tongue out? also sorry about the codieng errors but it's hard to code on the Wii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.160.114 (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source documenting such a paraphilia? If there is, then it would go in the main list of paraphilias. If not, then it should not go onto the page at all. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 12:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a name for a bone fetish?
I don't know if this exist, but is there a name for a fetish in which someone becomes sexually aroused from seeing human bone structure? Not necessarily a fetish for skeletons, but more like visible collarbones, hipbones, ribs, etc. in living persons. Twitterpated. (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Balloons or inflatophilia?
Sources:    --Silver Runner (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

name
what is pleasure from leeches on me called? --WalkUnderATrain (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 76.20.124.67
Editor with IP address 76.20.124.67: The Wikipedia policy is that all page content must reflect what is said in a "reliable source" (or "RS"). The information following each entry on the page (in brackets) indicates the source of the information. So, there is no trouble with your changing the wording of an entry to improve it (as long as the idea being expressed accurately reflects what is contained in the source being summarized); however, you cannot replace a well-sourced entry with an unsourced entry (nor "put words in the mouth" of a source and make the entry say something that the source did not).

As for the definition you put in for zoophilia (twice), I do not think it is correct. Sexual arousal from being treated as an animal would be called autozoophilia. Nonetheless, if you have a genuine reliable source (not just someone's blog somewhere) that gives another definition you think should be reflected on the page, you need to present your change together with that source.

Finally, there is a rule on Wikipedia, that one cannot make the same change on the same page three times within 24 hours. (It's called the three revert rule, or 3RR.) Doing so leads to edit warring instead of productive editing. To prevent edit warring, disputed changes should be discussed here, on the articles' talk page, and then the consensus of the discussion can be enacted on the main page.

A basic summary of the rules of editing Wikipedia can be found at by clicking here.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Conversion to table form
Pianophilia, the fetish for either pianos or the music from pianos. This likely stemmed from the sleekness of pianos and the so many places to put your fingers on and push. Also the old time pianos with the beautiful lady in a dress atop it. The music is a turn on as well. Many have it, you can search it on google.

The list form was damn near impossible to browse - way too redundant and verbose.

I've condensed it dramatically; it's now hopefully very clear, to the point, and browsable, and includes the common names where I knew them (for ease of lookup & recognition).

Some entries may merit being further condensed in their descriptors - I left a couple longer ones alone where I wasn't sure that the description was giving unnecessary detail (e.g. whether something is concensual may or may not be part of the paraphilia - viz. exhibitionism & voyeurism occur both with and without caring about consent; I personally know both consent-requiring and consent-averse voyeurs).

The common names column could probably also be expanded.

I'd like to see an extra column added listing the DSM diagnostic codes, where available; I don't have a copy of it to reference.

Enjoy. Sai Emrys  ¿?   ✍  10:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is an interesting idea to use a table, but I have some concerns.
 * The first is that of all the Lists I've seen in WP, all have been in a text rather than a table format. Is there a standard?
 * Second is that I (personally) believe the redundant entries (that is, synonyms and near synonyms) should be included. I suspect that many people who wind up reading the page are doing so to look up a particular entry; it is much easier for such readers to find what they are looking for when each word has an entry.  If a word is listed only as an alternative to another term, then it is much hard for a reader to find when they don't already know what it means and where it would be found.  Moreover, there is usually disagreement at the "borders" of terms, so that it is often unclear which entries should go where.  Giving each one its own entry solves this.
 * I'm not sure it's a good idea to include the slang terms. Such information (to me) would seem more appropriate to the WP page that actually covers that paraphilia.  Various groups use various terms that other group find inaccurate or offensive.  This means that the slang terms need careful sourcing, which is fine, but requires more space and commentary than is appropriate to a WP list.  Moreover, I believe the entries become more confusing rather than less, when the incorrect uses of terms are included (such as "hebephilia" as an incorrect synonym for "pedophilia").
 * I agree entirely, however, that the repetitive use of "attraction to..." and "sexual interest in..." should come out.
 * All that said, I think you're on to something quite good overall, but I think there should be some discussion and a consensus about these other issues first, however.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely, however, that the repetitive use of "attraction to..." and "sexual interest in..." should come out.
 * All that said, I think you're on to something quite good overall, but I think there should be some discussion and a consensus about these other issues first, however.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All that said, I think you're on to something quite good overall, but I think there should be some discussion and a consensus about these other issues first, however.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Point by point:
 * There is no standard about this. Lists are easier for most people to do, hence they get done more likelily. IMO (as a professional in computer interface design) tables are a far superior presentation method for this kind of very repetitive data.
 * Synonyms and near synonyms *are* included. I did not remove a single word except when it was a trivial grammatical difference (-ia vs -y). I have no objection to double-listing, however, especially when the words are not alphabetically very close to each other (which in most cases they were). In any case, this is not an argument against the table change; it is an argument about whether to add redundant entries. Every single case where there were shades of meaning - e.g. the several different urine and age related paraphilias - has been preserved as a distinct entry.
 * Slang is appropriate IMO because this is intended to be a lookup table. Most people do not know the latin terms. For cases where there is a commonly known colloquial term, including it is the fastest way for someone to find what they're looking for. It need not have any discussion or explanation; that is, indeed, appropriate only for the actual article. I believe that it is appropriate to list the 'incorrect' terms because that's what people commonly use - as such, it's what they're going to look for, and this makes for an easy way to correct their misunderstanding. (E.g. when someone wants to look up 'pedophilia' thinking it means 'attraction to post-pubescent adolescents'). Again however, this has nothing to do with the table conversion, but with one particular column in the table.
 * Given that only #1 is even an argument against the table conversion, and IMO it's an extremely weak one, I am un-reverting this per WP:BOLD. I think the other two points you raised, per above, are worth further discussion - but I'm going to make the edit, and let's discuss why removing it would improve this article.
 * Sai Emrys  ¿?   ✍  13:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I added :-indentation to your entry, as it's easier to read that way.
 * P.P.S. I note that you also reverted my "ex-paraphilias" addition, presumably by mistake since you haven't mentioned anything about it. Again though, this is a totally separate issue.

WP:BOLD does not apply to a lack of consensus. WP:CYCLE would seem relevant. I am not saying I have a strong argument, I am merely expressing an opinion about readability. Clearly, you have a strong opinion here, and your edits do not suggest, at least to me, a strong desire to discuss the issue before acting on your opinion. I suggest therefore that outside opinions be sought. I will make such a request at the sexuality project page. An RfC might also be considered. — James Cantor (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed the request at the sexuality project and have reviewed the two versions of the page and this discussion. After some consideration, I support the revert to the original format as a text list and oppose the formatting of the list as a table.  I take this view for the following reasons: (a) The table makes it hard to scan the entire list quickly because the table formatting takes more vertical space, and that makes less lines of information show up in one screen without scrolling.  Some users have small monitors so that is a consideration. (b) The table makes it harder to edit the list items.  Most users do not know how to edit tables.  (c) Tables are not one of the list formats specified at WP:LISTS.


 * I also oppose the inclusion of the "common terms", for these reasons: (a) the common terms are not supported by reliable sources, and (b) The meaning of many common terms is not quite the same, though there may be an overlap. For example, "flashing" is listed as a common term for "exhibitionism"; however, flashing is not particularly a sexually motivated act; usually its purpose is political, or simply for fun, to make a ruccus.  Another example: "talking dirty" is often a part of couples sexual activity and does not always imply "Narratophilia".  There are many more examples; the point is that this is a science list, not a pop culture sexuality terminology list; as such, the terms must be defined with precision.  (That said, a list of pop-culture sexuality terms might be a good idea, if it doesn't already exist).


 * Aside from the questions above, I suggest the list would be better with a bit more in the intro to define the criteria of inclusion and provide context for the list. There are guidelines for this at Stand-alone lists.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (a) Vertical space could easily be made to be identical to a plain text bullet list through the use of CSS, and I would support this change. (b) is true, but if valid would be an argument against *all* tables - which clearly are accepted forms on WP. IMO while most users probably cannot initiate or convert to a table, they are perfectly capable of copying the style of another line, or doing partial edits that are then fixed by more savvy WPians (as is usual in other things, like proper tagging). As such, I don't believe this is a valid argument. (c) I don't believe that this is indeed a simple list; rather, it is a multivariate definition list. Bullet form is a very poor way to communicate this information. People will be using this list both to look up the term (where they know the act) and to look up the act (when they know the term). This is therefore quite unlike a simple list, e.g. a list of Presidents, for which a bullet or numeric list would be entirely appropriate.
 * Common terms can be claused by saying that they do not refer to the entire or exclusive scope of the act mentioned, but are rather there solely as cues. "Flashing", e.g., is quite stereotypical of one specific kind of exhibitionism (e.g. people in trenchcoats). If it is clear that the common terms are *not* definitional, then I do not see the problem - they are there to ease lookup, not to be the referred-to thing.
 * I fully agree with your last comment re. criteria for inclusion. Sai Emrys   ¿?   ✍  09:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (a), the vertical space issue, has been solved. This argument is now moot. Better Wiki/CSS masters than I will be able to combine this with still having a sortable table. Sai Emrys   ¿?   ✍  09:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify why I think table is better than list: Bullet lists are good only for the case where you are looking up an item by the list key (in this case, the formal name). However, this "list" actually has three different lookup situations: by formal name, by common name(s), and by definition. Indeed, I think the formal name lookup is the least likely, because if they knew it they could just go to the appropriate page directly. Tables - especially sortable tables - are perfect for this, because each key is equally easy to look up. In the case of a bullet list, if someone wanted - say - to find what a "nose fetish" is called, then they'd have to read through all the text up until that point. In this case, they don't have to read the formal names at all, and they can easily scan the definitions - much more easily than if they were in full prose, as they were before. Sai Emrys   ¿?   ✍  22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

convenience break
Let me start by stating that I have not waded through the large monoblocks of texts that precede my comments. I am sure valid points are being made by all concerned parties, but I don't have the inclination to read them. In short, I prefer the "new" table format over either the "original" or the "new new" version. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * lol@WP:TLDR. Fair enough.  Suffice it to say, we don't seem to have a consensus for any version yet.  Typically in WP, that means to keep the original until there is a consensus to change it, but I have no need to  "be a dick" and insist on it.  How about an RfC to ask for more input?  Post a question on the paraphilia talk page?
 * — James Cantor (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll restate my comment with less detail. I oppose the table format, and more importantly, I oppose the inclusion of the common terms that were not present previously.  The common terms are not based on reliable sources, many of them are incorrect (example: flashing is often done for many reasons other than exhibitionism); occasional paraphilia-like behavior does not mean the person "has" the paraphilia. That is a fundamental science issue. The table format does not comply with WP:LISTS and is difficult for most users to edit. I appreciate the work that Saizai put in on making the table, but it doesn't suit this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jack-A-Roe. I believe many of Saizai's changes to the text were improvements (such as removing repetitive "sexual attraction to.."), but that the format and unsourced common terms should be reverted as per WP:LISTS and WP:V.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The common terms were way off, so I have removed those. They should stay removed unless there are reliable sources specifically identifying them as paraphilias.


 * I did not revert the table format, however, with all due respect to the person who did the work, it should be returned to the format of a normal list article. The table is excessively complex and hard to edit.  There are uses for tables, but in this case, it's not effective. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to contest the common names thing further; I believe it's useful for looking up, but *shrug*.

Re. list v table: simple test - for which is it easier to find what formal name is used for a particular paraphilia, given that you know what that paraphilia is about? E.g.: "sexual attraction to drinking blood". I'm willing to bet that table lookup time is much faster than list lookup time for this task, AND that it is the primary way in which this page is used. Sai Emrys  ¿?   ✍  06:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm willing to agree to disagree. I appreciate the work you did in setting it up. I'll leave it to others to decide; I won't press the point. Thanks for going along about the common names; that was more of a concern because of the imprecise definitions and lack of sources.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the "common names" feature was good idea. I fully understand the concern over reliable sources and support that concept as well. But I don't see how the desire for reliable sources should completely disallow a feature. Many sexual activities, inclinations, and paraphilias have a common "street" name associated with them. I completely understand that we don't want an article cluttered with inaccurate slang, but if reliable text on the subject also mentions common terms... I see no reason why they wouldn't be included. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone having a definition will use the table to look up a name...when even a professional who works with paraphilias regularly runs into a rare when, it seldom emerges that there exists a name for it at all. (Besides, one cannot scan a long list looking for a description when one has little idea how the description might be phrased.)  Look-ups are nearly always the other way around: someone runs into a new word, googles it, finds it on the list (and, probably, becomes a little fascinated by the other entries and starts reading WP just for the exposure to new information).
 * I suggest creating a new page, analogous to this one, but just for the slang terms. I can certainly imagine people looking things up in an alphabetical list of slang terms, where the formal name is given with the descriptions.
 * — James Cantor (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A new page seems to me to be wholly unmanagable clutter. If you want slang terms, put them in this table, and reenable the wikitable sortable class that I removed for the CSS minimization - then you'd be able to click the column header and sort by whatever column you prefer.
 * Having a separate page just to support a different column sort seems like a huge pain that'll inevitably be poorly maintained.
 * In any case, list v table v multi-table are identical in the case of known formal-word lookup. Sai Emrys   ¿?   ✍  17:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the "slang terms" are not the same as the paraphilia definitions. It's not just that they are unsourced, they are incorrect.  This is directly addressed on the paraphilia topic page in this section.  The common terms are specifically excluded from the list criteria based on the title of this article.  If someone wants a list article on sexual fetishes or behaviors, go ahead and make one, but that's not the same topic as this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't saying that they are the same; certainly they're not. The slang terms cannot be "incorrect", as they're not definitional. They can be "inaccurate" only when a formal term is used colloquially, as in pedophilia used for post-pubescent adolescents. The question is more whether they are used to refer to (some part of, or a super set of) the paraphilia listed. In any case, sourcing is a solvable issue. Sai Emrys   ¿?   ✍  18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The semantics don't matter. The slang terms are not appropriate for this list article because they don't meet the list criteria and they don't have reliable sources relating them to the paraphilias.  It's original research to connect them. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What would constitute a RS for this? Sai Emrys   ¿?   ✍  18:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this is a science topic, we'd need journal articles or academic books. Pop-press books or websites would not be sufficient. On the other hand, for an article such as List of sexual fetishes or List of unusual sexual behaviors, the sources would not need to be specifically scientific  because those are cultural topics that could include sources in the pop-press or from popular book publishers. That's how I see the difference, based on WP:OR and WP:RS/WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I must admit, I am having trouble following Jack-A-Roe's line of reasoning. From what I am reading the argument can be paraphrased as "This is a scientific list so scientific terms only, if you want to add common terms make a cultural list." Ok, but what if I'm reading a peer reviewed scientific journal and it says "_____philia, commonly referred to as _____" wouldn't that meet RS criteria and warrant its inclussion?--SeedFeeder (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a source like the one you described, with a clear statement as you described, would be sufficient. So far, no sources like that have been presented and I don't know of any. But if they exist, that would change the situation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems extremely unlikely to me that such a source exists (simultaneously formal and using colloquial language). Scientific sources use scientific jargon; popular sources (e.g. Dan Savage's sex advice column) may flirt with jargon, but will more usually use colloquial terms. Are those not "reliable" enough? I don't see the harm in using 'em, given that we are not using such terms definitionally, but only to help people find the term(s) that match what they have heard of colloquially.
 * E.g.: suppose someone wants to know what "golden showers" or "watersports" mean. It's not in the definition, it's not in the formal term. It *is* in the list (urophilia, if you don't know). How are they supposed to find it in this list? I think having them walk away uninformed is a definite fail.
 * Re. Soap's question in the edit history: the table is transparent because I removed the |class: wikitable sortable part at the top. I couldn't figure out how to keep the lineheight minimization CSS working with it there. IMO it looks better this way anyway (per Jack-A-Roe's comment above re the original table form being excessively lengthy due to padding etc), though I'd prefer it be sortable too if possible. Sai Emrys   ¿?   ✍  10:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe also that the DSM codes are out of place. First, why the DSM and not ICD? Second, only very few of the list entries have DSM codes, leaving a column that is mostly space (unless you want a column that is 85% "DSM code for 'other'." The paraphilias that do have DSM codes also have WP pages, which are already wikilinked, and those pages already include the DSM codes.  The purpose of a list is just to list; expanding information belongs on the other pages.

Although I was not aware of it until Jack-a-Roe pointed it out: There is a style guildeline already in place for this, which reads "Although the use of tables to display lists is discouraged—because they provide low-quality contextual information and accessibility and have a more complex notation that hinders editing—there are some instances where they can be useful, such as when three or more columns are required."

There does not seem to be any consensus for including any of the information other than what fits into two columns, and no one has suggested any reason for breaking the guideline (outside of personal preference).

— James Cantor (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I gave two reasons fro breaking it: lookup time from acts, and lookup at all from colloquialism. Sai Emrys   ¿?   ✍  20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read what you wrote. I am not, however, reading a consensus. — James Cantor (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what you said, though. You said a) no consensus re colloquialisms, and b) nobody gave reasons for breaking the guideline. I'll tentatively agree with (a), but (b) is just false - I did. Sai Emrys   ¿?   ✍  22:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a consensus for the addition of the colloquial terms; they should therefore be removed. There does not seem to be any reason to keep an almost entirely blank column for DSM coes; they should therefore be removed. There does not seem to be any consensus to violate WP:Lists. Therefore, I believe the table format should be reverted back to a standard list. (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

convenience break #2
IMO, this comes under When to use tables, e.g.: "Lookup tables, Lists of information, Equivalent words in two or more languages". As such, I believe this comes under the Tables format mentioned in WP:Lists and is not a "violation" of that guideline. Sai Emrys  ¿?   ✍  11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)