Talk:Paraphilic infantilism/Archive 7

Why??
Why did WLU revert my edit?!?! Dark windows of the soul (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edit removed sourced information, added information not verified by the source appended to it, deleted sourced information and used inappropriate capitalization. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 04:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But YOU removed sourced information from another article - on Philip E. Johnson. How can you criticize me for doing the same thing?!?! Dark windows of the soul (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am STILL waiting for an answer to that question?!?! Dark windows of the soul (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow!
A couple observations: 1) The IP poster(s) with IPs from the same connection claims to be different people. 2) Someone (Spl1) deleted comments critical of him/her self. Who would think a harmless fetish would cause so much consternation? (I'm neglecting the tildes because I think it's a stupid policy to ask people to do something that's easily done on the software level) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.118 (talk • contribs) 21:25, August 11, 2012‎
 * my response to 1: perhaps two people (domestic partners?) share the same internet connection. not inconceivable.  in fact, likely.75.68.9.233 (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * the article on "paraphilic infantilism" is much too sexually oriented. from what i gather with respect to the bdsm community, a lot of people ("littles") engage in ageplay for what are essentially NONsexual reasons.  infantile ageplay may be a way of dealing with mental issues, a means of retreating from adult responsibilities and pressures.  some may see at as an attempt to recapture one's lost innocence.  for many individuals, infantile ageplay may have nothing whatsoever to do with adult sexuality. all.  in fact, it could be seen as a retreat from one's status as a sexualized adult.  i don't particularly like the term "paraphilic infantalism."  what we are talking about may not be "philic" at all.  the desire to be loved and cared for as if one were a child isn't necessarily sexual.  "infantile ageplay" might be a better term.  what we are talking about is a "fetish," but i would argue that it is essentially a nonsexual fetish (similar to, and in some cases overlapping with, a fetish for collecting stuffed animals, or even dressing up as an animal (furries).75.68.9.233 (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not opinions. Without a source, your opinions can not be integrated into the page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paraphilic infantilism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217215747/http://www.mednet2002.org/abstracts/display.cfm?id=166472151 to http://www.mednet2002.org/abstracts/display.cfm?id=166472151

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paraphilic infantilism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160612080113/http://chicagoist.com/2016/06/09/some_adults_have_to_wear.php to http://chicagoist.com/2016/06/09/some_adults_have_to_wear.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Most obvious explanation is missing
The most obvious explanation is missing: sexual feelings developed earlier than in puberty, as a child. The time of the first sexual arousal is always remembered vividly, and by imagining to be at that age again, it can be relived. This also means that diaper fetishism must be something completely different, since no one remembers being a baby; so diaper fetishism should be a seperate article. --91.34.137.70 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * We go by WP:Reliable sources, WP:Due weight and WP:Notability for matters such as this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My source is my own experience, and logic, which doesn't need any sources. My first strong erotic feelings started when I was five years old, so I developped infantilistic tendencies, but naturally they don't have to do anythng with diapers or with anything concerning babies whatsoever. It is completely illogical that the mechanism I described - which I experienced and which should be plasuible to anyone - would lead to diaper fetishism. I feel deeply offended by this article. --91.34.134.13 (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If it's so obvious, you won't have any trouble finding citations for it. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't find this explanation anywhere, so I can't cite anything. If no psychologist ever came up with this obvious and logical explanation, bad for psychology. The only assumption I made is: "The time of the first sexual arousal is always remembered vividly". I think that assumption is obviously true. The rest of my explanation is pure logic. So if my assumption ist true, my explanation is correct, no matter if someone else wrote about it or not. --91.34.129.139 (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this does not actually provide an explanation. There has been no association found between the incidence of one’s first sexual desires, and the development of non-standard sexual behaviors. Psychiatry has looked at this using population surveys, and have not found this pattern to hold true. (Note: I have concluded this from numerous anecdotes from members of the ABDL community, but have not examined academic sources in depth to confirm.) —Snaperkids (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Diaper fetishism is currently its own article, a rather poor article too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Why is this article also full of talk about diapers then? - The word "diaper" is in nearly every sentence, ridiculous. Obiviously diaper fetishists conquered this article. It even goes on about diaper fetishism where it has nothing to do with infantilism whatsoever: "There are also individuals who wear diapers but do not act as infants, either diaper lovers who eroticize diaper wearing ... blah blah". --91.34.134.13 (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If you know how the article could be improved, feel free to do it. Just make sure you include an edit summary if you're deleting chunks of text so you don't get mistaken for a vandal. And try to include citations even if you think something is "obvious". --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Classification as a sexual fetish
I believe that the phrase towards the beginning of the article is too quick to jump to the conclusion that Paraphillic infantalism is a sexual fetish. While it may be for some, this is most certainly not always the case.

My opinion is that instead of reading:

Paraphilic infantilism, also known as autonepiophilia,[1] psychosexual infantilism,[2] and adult baby syndrome[3] is a sexual fetish that involves...

I should be more accurately be phrased as

Paraphilic infantilism, also known as autonepiophilia,[1] psychosexual infantilism,[2] and adult baby syndrome[3] is a sexual fetish and/or that involves...

For the descriptor I think it would behoove the article for it to be something along the lines of: interest lifestyle fantasy or something else

I would also argue that the sentence be rephrased entirely to draw a distinction between Infantilism as a fetish, and as an interest and fantasy, something for stress relief and fun. This is not currently implied, thus creating the impression that all Infantalists are sexual deviants, which just plays in to a misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101E:C02D:E924:52C7:ABD:3B6C (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What sources are you basing your opinions on? "Deviants" is an outdated term, but paraphilic infantilism certainly deviates from typical sexual behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is part of an ongoing debate in psychology. Some members of the community want to do away with the term “deviant sexual behavior” due to the negative, and potentially stigmatizing, implications associated with the term deviant. Others feel like it’s a word that still has significant utility and accurately described a class of behaviors. This debate was argued at length during the last major revisions of the ICD and the DSM, and the debate still continues. I personally don’t agree with the usage of the term “deviant sexual behavior”; I would, however, say that the article should use the preferred terms that are used by the field.Snaperkids (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Using the term deviant sexual behavior rather than paraphilia, which is where deviant sexual behavior redirects to, is one thing. Calling people "sexual deviants" is another. Today, sexologists, psychiatrists and psychologists usually do not refer to people as sexual deviants. I don't know of any valid academic in those fields who still call people that. And either way, the term paraphilia is used significantly more so than deviant sexual behavior is used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. The label of deviants for people is rarely used in clinical or research settings. The controversy mostly stems from the remnants of that terminology still being in the diagnostic language. Some want any trace of the term deviant removed from future revisions of the diagnostic manual as a symbol of how the field has grown to be more inclusive of uncommon things people do. Others will argue that it’s just a waste of time. Either way it’s a rather trivial distinction in the clinical setting.Snaperkids (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Adult baby syndrome is not a sexual fetish, Diaper lovers are the sexual side of this. If this was sexual it wouldn’t develop until later in life, It is considered a Life style condition and I have been into it since I was very young before I even know what sex was. Sid4k4 (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)