Template talk:Sexual orientation/Archive 4

Is this RfC a mess?
Frankly I didn't have time when first pulled here to go through all the articles, and now, this page seems just, well, more a mess than a help. I wonder if, sadly enough, we should use separate RfC's on these subjects so it's crystal clear what the consensus is? For instance, "Does Zoosexual need to be included on the template?" might be more efficient to deal with these issues rather than tackling several at once. Any thoughts? Banj e b oi   10:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

The problem is, that this topic is in major, socio-political transition.

Of course, it is easy just to quote what 'The Man' says. He is 'The Man'.

'The Man' always falls.

Yours,

Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 10:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally want to see the template appear similar to this similar to User:Cooljuno411/Template:Sexual orientation, the template on the right. With all the orientations group under one category, not separate "sexual identity" and "sexual orientations" categories. With all the labels under on category, the hetero-homo continuum orientations would be visually separated into their own subsection from the other orientations that do not comply to the hetero-homo continuum. This would clearly comply to the definition put forth by the APA that says that sexual orientations generally lie on the hetero-homo continuum but acknowledges the fact that there are people that classify with other orientations are none at all. The current version is being selective of what is an orientation and what is not. What gives, say for example, asexuality the right to be under sexual orientations but not autosexuality, both are not on the hetero-homo continuum, so what gives it the right to be classified under a separate listing? I believe the current edit is the result of personal opinion and not factual reference. Many people state support for this current edition with reference to the hetero-homo continuum but that clearly contradicts the current edit because there are labels under the sexual orientation category that do no comply with the continuum, and at that, the current edit contradicts the quote from the APA that clearly recognizes that there is more than just the three orientations on the continuum. Like i sad before, i think it would be best to have one category titted "Sexual Orientation labels" with the hetero-homo continuum orientations listed in it's own sub-categorized section and the other labels as well in their own sub-section, without this selective "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity" categories that are placed into these category with absolutely no bases for it. I will create a draft template to show an example of what i believe it should appear to be, whcih would be a more up-to-date version then what i linked above. One might not agree with my proposed edition but I have brought to light that there is something wrong with the current edit, with biasly selected categories that have been created with no logical distinguishes of what exactly falls under a "sexual orientation" and what falls under a "sexual identity".  --Cooljuno411 (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC) I have created a a proposed draft, i am going to place my prosed template here next to my comment, or you can see it at User:Cooljuno411/Template:Sexual orientation. The color is of course up to a session of user input, i just want to make the template look a lil fresher, the current edition looks like something from windows 95 ¦¬ ]. I would love to here everyone opinion regarding the content and actual appearance of the drafted template. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the simply answer is yes but will await some others to offer input. Cooljuno411, my suggestion would be to hold off on aesthetic issues, as important as they might be, a stick with the content of including pages and restructuring which has yet to be met with strong support. We've now had a lot of Bold and revert, which pointed out elsewhere is better suited for articles rather than templates, so it may makes sense to focus on consensus discussion. Banj e  b oi   12:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The appearance of the template can be discussed later, i mainly created the draft template as a visual. I feel that this draft and my paragraph written above has become a great method of consolidating my argument which was speratically spread across the talk page, which i feel has lead to a misunderstanding of what I was trying to imply, do to the fact everyone kept saying i was trying to create original research. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Equating zoosexuality and pedophilia with homo- and bisexuality is one of the most egregious NPOV violations I've ever seen, thanks. – Luna Santin  (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:


 * Sorry, are you suggesting that they are not 'equivalent', fundamentally ... and by that I mean, scientifically?


 * Yours,


 * Nigel.


 * Comment: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You cannot have 'zoosexual' and then not have 'paedosexual' (although it is not a word I like, MAA is better) ...


 * ... and don't go telling me that 'paedosexuality' is not 'correct'. :)


 * Paedosexual delinquency A study into prevalence, circumstances and criminal justice interventions
 * http://english.wodc.nl/onderzoeksdatabase/aard-en-omvang-pedoseksuele-delicten.aspx


 * Legal treatment of pedosexuality, Dannecker M.
 * 1: Beitr Sexualforsch. 1987;62:71-83.


 * Yours,


 * Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:


 * Don't like the second one.


 * "Other non-heterosexual labels"


 * What is that supposed to mean? Homosexual labels?


 * Yours,


 * Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have formated your comments, Nigel, but i wasn't sure exactly who you were replying to with all three of your comments, i was assuming Luna Satin being taht they were all bellow her statement. When you add another comment take not to how formated your comments with the ":". You should always have one more ":" than the comment you are replying to so it will look like how my comment appears as a reply to yours. Thanx ¦¬ ]  --Cooljuno411 (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC) 


 * TY ... I am getting my head around this formatting. Yours, Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 08:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it "is one of the most egregious NPOV violations I've ever seen" to actually say something like that. That statement has no basis, and is just personal opinion. Not everyone has the same opinions as you, your going to have to accept that. The APA clearly says that not everyone complies to the same agenda, i don't understand why you just can't accept that people are different. The current edit was created with no basis, and doesn't give any justification for discriminating people's sexual orientations by say they aren't true sexual orientations but only "sexual identities". All you do is say why everything is wrong, can't you help be more productive for the article? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * appearance-wise, you're proposed template looks nice. content-wise, it's original research of a blatant sort. NPOV assertions aside, equating homosexuality with something like pedophilia (which is generally illegal, and generally considered immoral in this country) is highly contentious and offensive.  your content additions add nothing to the understanding of sexual orientation that I can see, and merely serve to muddy already difficult waters.


 * by the way, taking a single off-hand phrase from the APA article and expanding on it is synthesis. there is no way you can claim that the APA meant to include all of these divergent identities and behaviors under the construct of 'sexual orientation', not based on that single, vague phrase.  you'd have to have some much clearer statement to make that point.


 * and please stop insulting Luna - it's uncalled for. thanks.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear, the APA does not consider the paraphilias (pedophilia, zoophilia, etc) to be part of their conceptualization of sexual orientation. Those are disorders, being LGB is not.  Check DSM-IV-TR for proof.  Even mentioning them in the same breath is offensive, because it implies a relationship between behavior that is considered deviant and what should be a socially acceptable lifestyle choice.  If someone wants to created a broader template about human sexuality and include the paraphilias there, fine, but they cannot appear on this template together.  Period.  Steve CarlsonTalk 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let us be clearer, the APA is not the be-all and end-all of knowledge and truth (very far from it), they offer 'proof' of very little. Being LGB is illegal and a disorder in other societies, right now. Being LGB was, recently, a disorder, as defined by the APA ... now, what changed, exactly? Not science, not any activities, just the lobbying of a small group of vocal LGB supporters (including those in the APA). Being LGB is a socio-biological dysfunction and deviant (by the actual definition of the word) ... people do suffer, mentally, from being LGB and by the actions of LGB people. Get off your xenophobic and selective-thinking high horse and smell the coffee, my friend :) Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, a smiley face and a cordial salutation doesn't mitigate a personal attack. Your point re: the APA and the shift in academic consensus is valid but calling me xenophobic and selective-thinking was unnecessary.  My intent is not to judge - I am arguing from the perspective of a person with several LGB friends whom I have witnessed having strong emotional reactions to the conflation of sexual orientation with pedophilia.  I have come across several blogs on the internet alerting people to a perceived injustice being done by this template in its current form and calling for action.  I am just trying to prevent further such reactions by proposing a different way of handling this that is not so provocative - please see my proposal below.   Steve CarlsonTalk 08:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you are far too sensitive to be here :) You are xenophobic, because you think that the APA is the arbiter of truth and ethics ... there are other societies, you know, who are much more consistent than the APA. The conflation from your friends (and mine and of many people) is ignorance, nothing more. Paedophilia/Paedosexuality/being a MAA is not a criminal or immoral activity ... it is a condition of sexuality, a sexual orientation, whose actions are, presently, unacceptable in some circles, just like being LGB in some countries. I am challenging the ignorance and short memories of the LGB 'community', in this respect. You will see that I have agreed with you, below, on a way forward. Yours, Nigel.Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't change the fact that the current edit is the result of personal opinion by User_talk:Ludwigs2 biasly selecting what falls under "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity". And your reference does not change the fact that people "classify under different orientations or none at all". The current edition would clearly be an error because it completely denies pomosexual, autosexual, and other orientations labels as true orientations. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the inclusion of pomosexual and autosexual, but I do have a problem with the inclusion of paraphilias and zoosexuality. I feel that the inclusion of sexual behaviors that are widely considered socially deviant and psychologically disordered is damaging to the LGB community.  Steve CarlsonTalk 02:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So would you be ok with this draft edit?, which does not include paraphilias and zoosexuality. Or this draft edit could be appealing as well, it lists paraphilias and zoosexuality under debated identities, which would allow the template to not show support or disapproval of those labels. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 
 * Ooh, I like the second one with "debated identities" - I have to admit that people who identify as such would consider these their orientation, which seems to fit the definition. However, I'd still like to see a reliable source that explicitly says "sexual orientation includes paraphilia", without need for interpretation. Steve CarlsonTalk 04:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is because you are a blinkered, xenophobic, gay ;) NOTE THE SMILEY. Yours, Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 07:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From ‘asexual’ to ‘zoosexual’: "Zoosexuality is a term covering sexual orientation towards animals....Zoosexuality is a value-neutral term covering the spectrum of human-animal sexuality, and implies nothing more than a person with an orientation towards animals." --Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 
 * Human animal sexual interactions: a predictive model to differentiate between zoophilia, zoosexuality and bestiality: "The current study led to the development of a predictive model, differentiating further between zoophilia, zoosexuality and bestiality. It is suggested that these differences are predicated on underlying individual levels of empathy, attachment and sexual attraction. It is considered that zoophilia is an attachment based relationship, zoosexuality is a sexual orientation and that bestiality occurs in people whose sexual orientation may be predominately directed to other humans." --Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 


 * The current edition is what should be called "original research", it biaslly and discriminatory selects what a "sexual orientation" and what a "sexual identity" is, with the no basis for why such labels are listed under such sections. I am complying to the quote from the APA that clearly states that people generally classify under the three sexual orientations that fall into the hetero-homo continuum but their are other that do not classify under this category or do not classify at all. I am the on that is using the entire article, you are the one picking and selecting what sounds best to you by completely denying that "single off-hand phrase", as you like to call it. And maybe you are looking at the wrong drafted template, but the one I proposed clearly separates the continuum from non-continuum orientations, so i don't see where you get at saying "equating homosexuality with something like pedophilia". Now your just throwing any statement you can at me by saying "your content additions add 'nothing' to the understanding of sexual orientation that I can see", well maybe you should take a look at the sexual orientation article, cause i don't think you are quite understating what a "an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attraction" actually is. Your the one that has made the waters "muddy" by picking and choosing what you feel classifies as a "sexual orientation". You continue to using the hetero-homo continuum as your basis for why you are correct, but that would completely contradict your edit. In you edit, asexuality is under sexual orientation and autosexuality is under sexual identity, yet they are bolth not on the continuum, nor is pansexuality at that. What baisis do you have for distinguishing the the two categories?, other than personal opinion. And know you say that "the APA [never] 'meant' to include all of these divergent identities and behaviors under the construct of 'sexual orientation'" but they clearly state that some people do not classify under the orientations on the hetero-homo continuum, and simply saying that they "[never] 'meant' to include all of these divergent identities" you are clearly contradicting your current edit once again by saying that the only "true" sexual orientations lie on the continuum, but yet you have a whole handful of other identities, such as pansexuality and asexaulity, that mix together with what you classify as a true orientation. These blatant contradictions continues to prove you are improvidently changing your opinions to try and get your cherry-picked template to be correct, but it appears your twisting of facts has caught up to you. And your broken record tactics of says that my clearly referenced template is "original research" is not going to work anymore. You have yet to prove why your pick-and-choice template is correct. I will be the one taking the offense know, i have already proven and complied as to why your edition is an error, and you have yet to state why your edit is right, so i recommend you stop repeating yourself and take a search or two on google before you continue in the direction of scaring your creditability --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 


 * (Outdenting) Proposal: Here's a thought: why not create List of debated sexual orientations or an actual article on the debate over the precise boundaries of sexual orientation (it seems like it would be a fruitful topic) and put a link to it in the template? That way nobody would be offended by the inclusion of any specific items on this template, while still allowing access to fringe opinions.  Perhaps even create a template for "orientations" that are the subjects of this debate, and use that on those articles so they can have a nice sidebar too.    Steve CarlsonTalk 04:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have done something like that in this draft edit, is that what your implying? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm talking about taking it one step further and removing the links to zoosexuality and paraphilias, replacing them with a single link to an article with a title like Debate over the definition of sexual orientation, which would discuss the philosophical, social and political arguments related to this debate and list these and other sexual identities that fall into this grey area. That way there is no direct mention of these controversial topics on the template, but they would still be accessible through the article, along with the proper context of the debate.  Steve CarlsonTalk 06:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Steve is correct. Although your are all counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I guess we have to, for now. So long as thoughts such as 'mine' are pointed to, then that would be acceptable. However, it is essential that it is made very clear, that the APA and friends are not scientific, and they change their minds for reasons far removed from science. Sexuality is a fluxional concept, in time and place. Yours, Nigel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk • contribs) 08:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have replied to your comment above with two references. I like you idea of having a new article, but couldn't we still having the subsection "debated identities", in an effort to remain neutral, but "debated identities" would link to your proposed new article. One of the references i gave above is called "Human animal sexual interactions: a predictive model to differentiate between zoophilia, zoosexuality and bestiality" which clearly distinguishes zoophilia and zoosexual. I have not yet searched for any information of paraphilia as a sexual orientation, so that is still up to debate. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you are wrapping yourself up in structural fallacies created by The Positivistic Man. Zoophilia is a psychiatric term. Zoosexual is psychological/wider term. The first is a mental disorder, the second is not. Sometimes, in action, one is illegal, sometimes both, sometimes neither. This is odd, because they are exactly the same thing. If there is ego-dysfunction (thus, it becomes a psychiatric issue), then, that is not due to the sexual orientation, per se, but due to socio-legal responses, this is true of all the paraphilias. Both are the sexual attraction to non-human animals ... and that's that. Berlin makes his point on paedophilia, as provided above. Berlin is a leading worker in the field. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your references, thanks. As for your counter-proposal, I feel it is essential to remove the links to the specific topics on zoosexuality and paraphilias. How to format the link to my proposed article is still up in the air.  It could be done as a section-level header, but without subitems it would be a little inconsistent with the other sections, so my recommendation would be to include it into the "Study" subsection. Steve CarlsonTalk 08:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well here is a draft edit of what i described. I put paraphilia in gray because that is still debated. Would there be an issue if we include zoosexual but not paraphilia? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course there would be an issue, for some of the reasons I have just provided :) Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want clarification, are your okay with this draft edit except with the debated identity section that includes paraphilia and zoosexual. I want make sure the rest of the template is going in the correct direction. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 
 * Well, yes and no ;) Paraphilias are not 'Sexual Identities', whether debated or not. They are real and scientifically-proven sexual attractions (i.e Sexual Orientations). This is not what a 'Sexual ID' is. No, I do not agree with the fallacious sub-systems, but I will have to accept them, for now. I think it correct, that the Paraphilias should have some 'is it a sexual orientation?' type heading, but not under 'Sexual ID'. You do need to put Paedosexual next to Zoosexual, though, as they have the same intellectual stem (also, Paedosexual has an auto redirect on Wiki). Other than that, you are doing a good job. :) Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

Here is further, recent, published confirmation, that paedophilia is a bona fide sexual orientation.

"A substantial amount of research has been performed on what leads one to be attracted to children. Pedophilia, especially the exclusive type, may be best thought of as its own category of sexual orientation, not something that is superimposed on an existing heterosexual or homosexual identity."

HALL, MD, RYAN C. W.; AND RICHARD C. W. HALL, MD, PA.. "A Profile of Pedophilia: Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism, Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues" (PDF). MAYO CLIN PROC 82:457-471 2007. MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH.

From:

Bogaert AF, Bezeau S, Kuban M, Blanchard R. Pedophilia, sexual orientation, and birth order. J Abnorm Psychol. 1997;106:331-335. Fagan PJ, Wise TN, Schmidt CW Jr, Berlin FS. Pedophilia. JAMA.2002;288:2458-2465.

"THE DSM & THE PARAPHILIAS mentioned in the clinical literature in regard to the treatment of the Paraphilias (Moser, 1988; 1999). A strict reading of the definition of a mental disorder suggests that the distress must be “present distress” (APA, 2000, p. xxxi), which implies that if the distress is mitigated, the individual no longer meets the criteria for the diagnosis. Some individuals sincerely wish to change their sexual interests and have not found solace from or are unwilling to attend support groups. These individuals should be treated in a similar fashion to those who are uncomfortable with their sexual orientation.

DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal On May 19, 2003, Charles Moser, Ph.D., M.D. gave a presentation on the topic of this paper at the American Psychiatric Association’s Annual Meeting in San Francisco. Moser C, Kleinplatz PJ (2005). DSM-IV-TR and the paraphilias: An argument for removal. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 17(3/4), 91-109.

Bibliography for Facts About Sexual Orientation

Includes:

Blanchard, R., Barbaree, H. E., Bogaert, A. F., Dickey, R., Klassen, P., Kuban, M. E., & Zucker, K. J. (2000). Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation in pedophiles. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 463-478. Finkelhor, D., & Araji, S. (1986). Explanations of pedophilia: A four factor model. The Journal of Sex Research, 22 (2), 145-161. Groth, A. N., & Gary, T. S. (1982). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation. In A.M. Scacco (Ed.), Male rape: A casebook of sexual aggressions (pp. 143-152). New York: AMS Press. McConaghy, N. (1998). Paedophilia: A review of the evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32(2), 252-265. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_bibliography.html Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be comfortable with Steve's proposal, above. It would allow for a more nuanced approach that might give us a reasonable chance at actually keeping everybody happy. For what it's worth, I actually rather like the look of the edit CJ proposed, even if I'm arguing strongly about its particular content. – Luna Santin  (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nigel, CJ - I respect the fact that you both think the APA and other scientific bodies are incorrect in their assessment of what sexual orientation is. however, challenging or changing that professional assessment is original research.  please read this link carefully so you understand wikipedia we can't include what you want to include.  no question that you make interesting arguments, and no question this may be something that the APA and academics ought to consider, but it still does not reflect a major point of view as expressed in secondary sources.  if you don't understand that, please ask for clarification, because that is essential to understand for editing on wikipedia.


 * I could work with Steve's proposal as well. I'd edit it into CJ's template as a trial, but I don't want to do that in his user space without his permission.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have provided primary, source references, from members of the APA. What is more important, however, is that the APA has a doubtfully-credible position on what Sexual Orientation is, because Sexual Orientation is not a psychiatric condition ("Psychiatry is a medical specialty which exists to study, prevent, and treat mental disorders in humans), and is, therefore, outside their ambit and influence (they are also heavily-influenced by politics, over science). Only you give them the credence they do not deserve, due to one of the major weaknesses of Wikipaedia. This is why I will never edit an article and will only ever make comments in discussions, as I will not be party to intellectual restrictions of that variety. As I have indicated, had Einstein visited, in his day, and offered his theories, you would have refused to include them, until lesser mortals began to understand, accept, talk and write about them. However, this is even worse, because the information I have provided is actually higher quality than a reflection of a major point of view as expressed in secondary sources. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you have provided primary sources - that is the problem. Nigel, you have to accept wikipedia for what it is - an encyclopedia, whose only purpose is to report the current state of knowledge in the world.  take you PhD and your greater mind and go change the way the world views sexual orientation; I'll root for you, and when it's done we here at wikipedia will happily report that new consensus.  until then, deal with the fact that wikipedia has to report the current understanding, however inferior that might be.


 * you're right, Einstein's original research would never have been included in wikipedia. but then Einstein was a scientist, and he would not have bother trying to prove his point in wikipedia in the first place.  get it?  -- Ludwigs 2  23:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The current state of knowledge being what? There is little, more correct, than primary sources. I have said very little about what I think about sexuality, I have quoted The Professionals. I am changing minds, by these very posts :) No, Einstein would have been here, as would Shakespeare and many others. I think you underestimate just what 'this' is. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you make a list or a visual of how you would like to see the template appear. thnax. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 


 * I have only have these issues (at this time). If you have zoosexual anywhere, you have to have p[a]edosexual next to it (these being the major, 'fringe' sexualities). I guess transsexual has to be there too.

List:

Sexual orientation in human sexuality

Sexual Orientations labels

hetero - homo continuum Bisexual · Heterosexual · Homosexual

Asexual · Autosexual · Pansexual · Transexual · Pomosexual · Zoosexual · Pedosexual

The Paraphilia versus Sexual Orientation debate

Paraphilias · Pedophilia · The Debate

Gender-based alternative concepts

etc. OWTTE, Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, i made a draft edit of what you listed. The only thing i changed was "the debate" would be linked with the actual sub title of "The Paraphilia versus Sexual Orientation debate" because they are the same article, i put a note in grey to show what i am talking about. Would this draft edit be ok with you? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me, thank you (I don't know about over the next decade though ;) ). Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry, that's even more laden with original research. that draft will not fly.  -- Ludwigs 2  00:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please clarify and detail your claim. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  once again, using the same APA reference that's been cited about 6 times here already, 'sexual orientation' is a term used to discuss the range of sexual attraction specific to gender within the human population. it's a continuum that goes from being exclusively attracted to people of the opposite gender to being exclusively attracted to people of the same gender, with varying degrees of bisexuality in-between.  there is no explicit connection made to paraphilias (which are treated entirely differently by the APA), no explicit extension to non-human sexuality, and most importantly no real debate in the scientific or academic community that these connections or extensions should be made.  there is a small group of extreme christians who want to equate homosexuality with bestiality, another small group of paraphiliacs (primarily pedophiles) who want to legitimize their acts as normal sexuality, but neither of these groups carries sufficient weight in the discourse to be treated as credible.  now maybe there's something I haven't read (this is not really my field of interest), so if you have credible secondary sources that can demonstrate that there is a notable discussion in academia, please give it.  otherwise your presentation is pure original research.


 * ... and I have shown you, that the APA are not the credible or qualified body to define what is a Sexual Orientation, so all your arguments, based on it's definition fail. The reasons why the APA cannot possibly accept that the, so-called, Paraphilias, could be Sexual Orientations have been stated, in quoted sources, above (which are non-scientific and the reasons are partially fallacious). I also note, that you choose to ignore a number of articles, within this Wiki, which categorise pederasty etc as being a Sexual Orientation. Yours, Nigel Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * you've shown me that you don't believe that the APA is a credible source. however, most professional psychologists and psychiatrists would disagree with you.  you can't really use your personal opinion to support your own original research... -- Ludwigs 2  02:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do I need to tell you why I am correct and they are incorrect again? That is not original research, it is a statement of fact. Now, if the Psychologists had said it (which they never would), then it would be more likely to be correct. Yours, Nigel. Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok well you can put that input in when we see what everyone thinks. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead and clean up the template and and post it here to see what everyone thinks. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)