Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sjö (talk | contribs) at 14:26, 1 July 2008 (→Include pedohebephilia and gynandromorphophilia?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sexology and sexuality List‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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?

• 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.
  

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

• List-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Unknown-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles